Question on Time amd the Origin of the Universe


Questions on Time and the Origin of the Universe

Dr. Craig,

My name is Tejas and I'm 13 years old. I admire you and have watched many of your debates. I sincerely request you to answer this question, and thank you for taking your time to read this.

My question regards the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that I have seen you present in some debates. The first part is, is the initial premise on causation refuted if the zero-energy universe hypothesis is true, and what would be the flaws if the universe were a vacuum fluctuation? And regarding the second premise, could you please tell me why you think the presentism ontology of time is true?

I thank you so much and apologize if there seems to be any disrespect in the question. Please do answer this question.

Thanks so much,

Warm regards,


Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer


Chimps Can Cook! -- Or Not

We are continually told: "Humans are not exceptional!" Scientists and advocates huff and puff to show how animals are just like us, and the media eats it up.

This one made me laugh. The other day, the Guardian ran an article with a title that declared chimpanzees can cook. The title, however, ended up being a bit misleading:


A study found that chimpanzees prefer the taste of cooked food, can defer gratification while waiting for it and even choose to hoard raw vegetables if they know they will have the chance to cook them later on.


The findings suggest that our earliest ancestors may have developed a taste for roast vegetables and grilled meat earlier than previously thought, potentially shifting the timeline for one of the critical transitions in human history.

Wow! So, given the chance, they cook? Well, not exactly. They just exchanged raw food for better tasting cooked food:

For safety reasons, this was a plastic lunchbox with a false bottom, which researchers used to "transform" raw sweet potato placed inside by the chimpanzees into a cooked slice of a similar size...

Overall, the apes chose cooked potato nearly 90% of the time when they were given a straight choice and they were nearly as keen when they had to wait one minute while it was "cooked" by the researcher (who shook the plastic box ten times).

The chimps continued to opt for the cooked option 60% of the time when they had to carry the food some distance in order to place it in the "oven" -- although since they often carried it in their mouths this was a challenge and they sometimes appeared to eat the food on the way, "almost by accident".

So, chimps don't cook. Nor is there any evidence they have ever tried. They reacted to an unnatural situation set up by humans. But, of course, this means chimps are people too, or perhaps better stated, we are just chimps:


Dr. Erica van de Waal, a psychologist at the University of St Andrews, said the findings add to the growing list of parallels that have been observed between human and ape behaviours. "The more we study our primate cousins, the more we realise that they have the bases of most of our cognitive abilities, including for language, culture and fairness," she said.


Other than the fact that they don't have the actual abilities.

The experiments were performed at the Jane Goodall Institute's Tchimpounga Chimpanzee Sanctuary, which may shed some light on the results. Goodall is an ideologue as much as a scientist and exaggerated the inner lives of the chimps she observed to make them seem more human.

Read original article HERE

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

Hello Dr. Craig,

First, I want to thank you for all that you have done for the cause of Christ. You have been a powerful witness for the faith. I've continually been challenged in my thinking and knowledge by your writings and public discourses. You have taught me how to think critically and how to share Christian truth in a Christ-like manner.

I am a student of philosophy looking to go into apologetics ministry. In my studies and my time witnessing I've had to address many of the common objections to Christianity. One of the more recent objections has come from a Jewish man that I am witnessing to. It seems that one of the crucial things that is holding him back is the worship of Jesus. He couldn't see any way how this wouldn't end up being idolatry because, as he claimed, “you would be worshiping man rather than God”. Of course, I tried to point out that Jesus has two natures but it seems like this point was missed. Do you have any helpful ways to explain our worship of Jesus in a way that bypasses this objection? How should we understand our worship of Jesus? Do we worship him in deity and merely admire his humanity?

Any of your thoughts on this issue would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for all that you do in the name of Christ.


United States

To read Dr. Craig's answer please click HERE

The Reliability of the Gospels

Dear Dr. Craig,

First off, I want to thank you for all that you have done for me through your ministry and hope that your reach continues to spread. I grew up in a conservative Christian home and for the most part accepted everything that I had been taught. Then during my junior year of high school I read some Richard Dawkins, and the likes, and quickly lost my faith. About six or so months later I discovered your ministry and my life was changed! Your arguments convinced me and in no time I had gone back to my faith. I read On Guard and Reasonable Faith among other Christian authors as well. I felt that my faith was strong and I even considered changing my major to Philosophy for a short time. But now, I am saddened to say that I am slowly losing my faith in the Christian God.

Before I go into my reasons for losing my faith, I want to point out that at this point I still believe that Christ rose from the dead but if I were to give that up I would comfortably sit in a deist position, being that I consider arguments for a Gods existence to be convincing. So, the reason for my diminishing faith is that I have found that I can no longer trust the Old or New Testament. I will leave the Old Testament aside for now and focus on the new. In your books you have maintained that the earliest gospel was Mark and that it was written some 40 years after the death of Jesus, give or take a few years. You also hold that in the time between the event of Jesus' death and the writing of the Gospel of Mark that legends could not have infiltrated the original narrative because 40 years is not long enough. I find this reasoning very problematic.

I could grant you that the resurrection did happen (which I hold to) due to its attestation in multiple gospels and the Pauline epistles but that would in now way confirm any of the stories or teachings of Jesus. His whole life could have been made up by the writers, not due to them being corrupt but that these were the simply the stories they were told of Jesus that were passed on to the early Christians. My question here is how can we trust any of the stories of Jesus if they are not attested in each of the synoptic gospels?

I also find that the explanation that 4o years is too small of a window for legend to become present hard to buy into. First, within 4o years it is likely that few if any of the original eyewitnesses were alive being that the lifespan of humans then was minimal. So how could the stories be checked for accuracy if the eyewitnesses themselves were no longer around to do so? Secondly, when the eyewitnesses went to tell their story so others would follow Jesus they could not have told every single person from every town, therefore relying on the ones they told to pass on the story. It is plausible to think that if one's wife wasn't convinced by the stories of Jesus that the eyewitnesses told her husband then her husband would make up an even more miraculous story, like Jesus turning water into wine, to get her to believe. This is just one scenario of many that very likely took place leading to multiple if not the majority of Jesus' life being composed of stories that were made up to convince others.

Now as I stated earlier, I am a Christian but it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold the New Testament as authoritative concerning the matters of Jesus' life.

Best Regards,



United States

To read Dr. Graig's answer please clck HERE

Warm-Bloodedness is an Ocean Fish Stuns Evolutionists

It's a big, round fish called the opah, found in deep waters around the earth and looking a bit like someone's goldfish that seriously outgrew its bowl. Some fish, like tuna and sharks, can control temperature in parts of the body. This one can keep its whole body warm, giving it improved performance in the coldness of the depths. It's the first example of whole-body endothermy in a fish, raising new questions about the evolution of a complex trait.

The story caught the attention of many news sites, such as the BBC News and the Washington PostThe Weather Channel featured a short news video and report, saying that warm-bloodedness gives this fish a competitive advantage when it hunts slower, cold-blooded prey. Nate Scott at USA Today got a little crazy with his coverage, saying "Scientists have found a warm-blooded fish and we're probably all dead... They're evolving."

This is a sign. This is a message from the deep. Fish are changing. They're getting smarter. It won't be long before the warm blood of this fish starts burning hot, hot with a desire to eat us one by one.

Or perhaps not. Let's take a look at this nice harmless fish scientifically. Calling it "warm-blooded" is a bit of a misnomer, since it lacks the tightly regulated endothermic homeostasis seen in higher vertebrates like mammals and birds. Instead, as Sacha Vignieri explains in a short statement in This Week in Science, the opah distributes heat around its body that's generated by its swimming muscles.

Mammals and birds warm their entire bodies above the ambient temperature. Generally, this ability is lacking in other vertebrates,although some highly active fish can temporarily warm their swim muscles. Wegner et al. show that the opah, a large deepwater fish, can generate heat with its swim muscles and use this heat to warm both its heart and brain. This ability increases its metabolic function in cold deep waters, which will help the fish compete with other, colder-blooded species. [Emphasis added.]

Conservation of muscle heat is not that unusual. As noted, tuna and some sharks can warm parts of their body with it. The source paper in Scienceidentifies the key to the mechanism in the opah: counter-current heat exchangers in the gills.

Here, we describe a whole-body form of endothermy in a fish, the opah (Lampris guttatus), that produces heat through the constant "flapping" of wing-like pectoral fins and minimizes heat lossthrough a series of counter-current heat exchangers within its gills. Unlike other fish, opah distribute warmed blood throughout the body, including to the heart, enhancing physiological performance and buffering internal organ function while foraging in the cold, nutrient-rich waters below the ocean thermocline.

Counter-current heat exchangers (CCHE) are common in vertebrates. We have them in our kidneys. Similar mechanisms are found in sea turtles, foxes, and dolphins. Illustra Media's new film Living Waters (to be completed this month) will illustrate a particularly amazing example of a CCHE in humpback whales that creates a severe challenge for Darwinian evolution.

Other fish have CCHE's, too, so it's not overly surprising that the opah can use the mechanism to distribute heat generated by its fin muscles to warm itself. This does not, however, minimize the wonder of a CCHE. It is achieved by a "wonderful net" of blood vessels (rete mirabile, literally "miraculous web" in Latin) that provides an ingenious method to regulate core body temperature.

In a rete (plural: retia), arteries and veins mesh into networks of fine vessels that flow in opposite directions, as the term counter-current implies. This allows heat to diffuse from warm arteries to cold veins. In dolphins, excess heat from swimming is shed to the environment through retia in the dorsal fin and tail, where the blubber layer is absent.

The opah has retia in its gills. The authors explain how this provides warm-bloodedness in an unusual way for a fish:

What is exceptional about the opah is its arrangement of counter-current retia mirabilia located inside each thick, fat-insulated gill arch (Fig. 2), which thermally isolate the respiratory exchange surfaces from the rest of the body. Vascular casts of the gills (Fig. 2, A, C, and E) reveal that unlike other fishes, extensions of the afferent and efferent filament arteries (which deliver and collect blood immediately pre- and post-gas exchange at the gill lamellae) are embedded within each gill arch in a tightly bundled and contorted manner to form an arterio-arterial rete. Specifically, the afferent and efferent arteries of each individual filament are closely coupled (Fig. 2E) and stacked in an alternating pattern within the arch (Fig. 2, C and D) so that the cold oxygenated blood of each efferent vessel (returning from the respiratory exchange surfaces) should be warmed by the conduction of heat from the warm deoxygenated blood in the afferent filament arteries on either side (which are carrying blood to the gas exchange surfaces). As a result,oxygenated blood leaving the respiratory exchange surfaces should be warmed before entering into efferent branchial arteries for distribution to the rest of the body.

These retia, in other words, are unusual in that they are all composed of arteries, not arteries and veins. Heat from the warmer deoxygenated blood is transferred to oxygenated blood in the gills, so that it is not lost to the ocean water. But even that is not enough to keep the fish's brain warm. The authors found an additional rete in the muscles that move the eyes that adds a littlemore heat to the cranium. This way, the fish can avoid the mental sluggishness of a cold brain.

"Of particular importance is the capacity of opah to increase the temperature of the heart," they continue, by conserving body heat with specialized fat layers. The combined systems work well for a fish that spends most of its time below the thermocline in the frigid waters of the deep. "With a warm body core and heart, and even warmer cranial region, opah have the capacity for enhanced physiological function in their deep, cold habitat."

In short, the opah employs specialized adaptations of traits that are present in other fish. They are arranged in ways to conserve and channel heat for this species' deep-water needs. Consequently, the fish can call the world's deep oceans home.

And Now, Evolution

What do the authors say about how these adaptations evolved? Not much.

This study presents morphological, temperature, and behavioral data that demonstrate an independent evolution of a more whole-body form of endothermy present in the opah, Lampris gutattus -- a poorly studied, large, mesopelagic fish with a circumglobal distribution....

In many respects, the opah has converged with regionally endothermic fishes such as tunas and lamnid sharks for increased aerobic capacity. However, unlike these active, more surface-oriented predators that are thought to be derived from tropical ancestors and to use regional endothermy to expand their thermal tolerance or habitat utilization into deep and colder waters, the opah's evolutionary history is likely tied to greater oceanic depths, with all but the most basal lineage of the Lampridiformes inhabiting the mesopelagic zone (200 to 1000 m depth). Therefore, rather than using regional endothermy to dive below the thermocline during temporary forages, the opah (with its more whole-body form of endothermy) is distinctively specialized to exploit cold, deeper waters while maintaining elevated levels of physiological performance. The discovery of this form of endothermy, coupled with the recent finding of several distinct opah species inhabiting different regions of the world's oceans (including the subpolar southern opah, L. immaculatus), sets the stage for future comparative studies to further explore this key evolutionary innovation.

The explanation? Convergent evolution to the rescue! This fish's evolutionary history is tied to the depths. Give us more funding, and we can "further explore this key evolutionary innovation."

If that leaves you feeling unsatisfied, consider intelligence as a cause. Intelligence can take a solution that works in one environment and apply it in different animals in different environments. A rete mirabile is a complex system that cannot arise in a gradual, stepwise manner, because all the parts have to function together before any part has survival value. "Convergence" and "innovation" are magic words that provide no understanding. But since we know of a cause -- intelligence -- that can adapt a similar solution in multiple ways, that is a cause that a rational scientist should pursue.

Why Christianity rather than Judaism or Islam?

Hello Dr. Craig,

I have always wondered about your claim that Christianity is the only true religion (based on historical evidence as you say). But how can you be so sure when Islamic and Jewish scholars claim the same claim?

As a former atheist and now an agnostic, the question of which religion to choose is essential. I'm very well acquainted with Islamic Theology and unlike your claim. Islam affirms that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same god ("Allah" is not a special god for Muslims rather it's the term for god in Arabic).

So what is your position on Islam? (And I would really like to know from who do you get your information on Islamic theology).

I also would to invest some time in Christian theology, would kindly recommend some introductory books?

Thank you,


United States


The short answer to your question of why Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism, Sultan, is Jesus of Nazareth. While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the world’s three great monotheistic faiths, genetically related and so having much in common, what divides them is their account of Jesus. I think that neither Judaism nor Islam gives a satisfactory historical account of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

My interest in Islamic thought was sparked by my study of the history of the so-called kalam cosmological argument, especially its development by medieval Muslim theologians like al-Ghazali. In fact, it was due to their contribution to the development of the argument that I dubbed this version of the argument, which goes back to the pre-Islamic Christian era, the kalam cosmological argument (“kalam” being, as perhaps you know, the Arabic term for Islamic doctrine). You can read about their contribution to this and other forms of the cosmological argument in my The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz (London: Macmillan, 1980).

My interest in Islam thus awakened, I chose Islam as one of my two side areas of specialization on which I was examined for my doctorate in theology at the University of Munich. Both the teachings of the Qur’an and the dogmatic history of Islamic theology became subjects of fascination for me. I never dreamt at that time that some day I would have the privilege of debating Muslim apologists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa and lecturing on Islam and Christianity, not only in North America and Europe, but even at Muslim universities in Turkey and Tunisia.

While you’re certainly correct that “Allah” is just the Arabic word for God, being used even in the Arabic New Testament, it doesn’t follow, Sultan, from common vocabulary or words that Muslims and Christians have the same concept of God. No Muslim would concede that God is a Trinity of persons, as Christians believe, and, as you must know, the Qur’an condemns to hell those who claim that Jesus is God’s Son, as we Christians believe (V.70).[1] Similarly, I have argued that the character of the God of the New Testament is fundamentally different from the character of the God of the Qur’an. The God of the New Testament loves unbelievers with a love that is unconditional and universal (Matthew 5.43-48), whereas the God of the Qur’an has no love for unbelievers but loves only those who are faithful Muslims (III.25; XIX. 95).

But the real Achilles Heel of Islam is its portrait of the historical Jesus. It is ironic that the Qur’an chooses to deny the best established fact about Jesus, namely, his crucifixion (IV.157). Not only is there not a single shred of evidence in favor of this remarkable hypothesis, but the evidence supporting Jesus’ crucifixion is, as Emory University New Testament scholar L. T. Johnson puts it, “overwhelming” (The Real Jesus [San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996], p. 125). Paula Frederickson, whose book From Jesus to Christ inspired the PBS special by the same name, declares, “The crucifixion is the strongest single fact we have about Jesus” (Society of Biblical Literature meeting, November 22, 1999). The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the sceptical critics in the Jesus Seminar as--to quote Robert Funk--”one indisputable fact” (Jesus Seminar video).

When we think that the Qur’an was written by a man living in Arabia 600 years after Jesus with no independent source of information about him, it really isn’t so surprising that his view of Jesus was distorted. Whatever else one might say about Islam, its view of Jesus is erroneous, and so this religion cannot be true. There is good material on this site about Islam and Christianity; for example,

As for Judaism, again I should say that the decisive consideration is Jesus’ claims to be the Jewish Messiah and his subsequent resurrection from the dead. Jewish scholars are coming to recognize the historical facts undergirding Jesus’ resurrection and are hard-pressed to explain those facts apart from the resurrection. Indeed, one of their number, the late Pinchas Lapide, whom I heard lecture at the University of Munich, declared himself convinced that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. He also thought that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah. As Prof. Dr. Wolfhart Pannenberg, my Doktorvater, mused at the time, Lapide seemed strangely unable to connect the dots. If you’re interested in how a Jewish scholar responds to the evidence, take a look at my debate with Peter Zaas, Who Was Jesus?,ed. Craig Evans and Paul Copan [Louisville, Kent.: Westminster-John Knox Press, 2002]).

You ask, “How can you be so sure when Islamic and Jewish scholars claim the same claim?” Well, because they can’t explain the evidence concerning Jesus as well as Christianity. I’d invite you just to look at the resources I mentioned and judge for yourself. For more on Christian theology, I suppose I’d recommend Bruce Milne’s Know the Truth, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, Il.: Inter-Varsity, 2009) or my own lectures on Christian doctrine at .


Read more here

Real Science vs. Bill Nye the "Science" Guy

If you grew up among Generation Xers and Millennials as I did, then you probably loved watchingBill Nye the Science Guy on TV. Nye's quirky, off-beat, after-school PBS show achieved no small feat: It made kids laugh and got them to appreciate science -- and they didn't even realize they were learning.

While most Bill Nye-fans -- myself included -- enjoyed his wacky experiments and corny jokes, few if any realized there was another side to Bill, one that he didn't start unveiling until just the past few years: Nye advocates a hardline, intolerant, and divisive materialistic worldview view that stands diametrically opposed to the values shared by most Americans.

In 2010 he was named "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association. In hisacceptance speech, he explained his deeply nihilistic views:

I'm insignificant. ... I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. ... And the galaxy is a speck. I'm a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck.

Nye again made headlines in 2012, after declaring that parents who "deny" evolution should not instill in their children their own beliefs about life's origins:

When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in [evolution], it holds everybody back. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science. ... And I say to the grown ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

In 2014, Nye gained even more notoriety by participating in a debate watched by millions of people, pitting him against a famous young earth creationist, Ken Ham. While Nye deftly argued that the universe is billions of years old, he also highlighted his materialistic view that life is the result of strictly unguided natural causes. He then set out to capitalize on that publicity by releasing a book at the end of last year, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation.

Undeniable promotes the standard dumbed-down atheistic narrative about science, society, and evolution -- except now his book is influencing younger thinkers who mistakenly think Nye is an objective source of information for everything about science.

On the first page, we learn that for Nye, evolution answered his biggest questions about life, the universe, and the meaning of everything. "As I learned about evolution and descent by natural selection, the answers fell into place," he writes. "After all, evolution made us who we are."

Later, Nye reveals that his view that humans "suck" comes directly from his study of evolution: "As I learned more about evolution, I realized that from nature's point of view, you and I ain't such a big deal." According to evolution, Nye says, "humankind may not be that special."

And why aren't we special? Under Nye's nihilistic thinking, "evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan," and nature even shows "lack of evidence of a plan." For Nye, "Every other aspect of life that was once attributed to divine intent is now elegantly and completely explained in the context of evolutionary science."

Under Nye's outlook, even humanity's advanced abilities, like our moral codes and selfless altruism, are not special gifts that show we were made for a higher purpose. Rather, "Altruism is not a moral or religious ideal, no matter what some people might tell you," for human morality is merely a "biological part of who or what we are as a species."

If you think Nye's ideology is bad, wait until you see the science he uses to justify these claims.

On the natural chemical origins of life, Nye maintains that the famous Miller-Urey experiments "simulate[d] the conditions on earth in primordial times," and "produced the natural amino acids." Yet it's been known for decades that the Miller-Urey experiments did not correctly simulate the earth's early atmosphere. An article in Science explains why the experiments are now considered largely irrelevant: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."

Nye also promotes the unsophisticated argument that humans and apes must share a common ancestor because our gene-coding DNA is only about 1 percent different. "This is striking evidence for chimps and chumps to have a common ancestor," he writes.

This argument is not just simplistic, it's also false.

Another article in Science challenged "the myth of 1%," suggesting the statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired," and noting, "studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to believe." Geneticist Richard Buggs argues more accurate genetic comparisons show "the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70 percent."

But if we do share DNA with chimps, why should that demonstrate our common ancestry? Intelligent agents regularly re-use parts that work in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and wheels for airplanes). Genetic similarities between humans and chimps could easily be seen as the result of common design rather than common descent. Nye's crude argument ignores this possibility.

Undeniable also covers fossils -- but Nye botches his arguments that the fossil record shows "transitional forms."

Nye cites Tiktaalik as a "'fishapod' (transition between fish and tetrapod, or land animal with four legs)" that is a fulfilled "prediction" of evolution because of when and where it was found in the fossil record. (This is at least a bit better than when Nye called Tiktaalik a "fish-lizard" during his debate against Ken Ham.) Nye is apparently unaware that this so-called evolutionary "prediction" went belly-up after scientists found tracks of true tetrapods with digits some 18 million years before Tiktaalik in the fossil record. As the world's top scientific journal Nature put it, this meansTiktaalik is not a "direct transitional form."

In another instance, Nye claims we've "found a whole range of human ancestors, includingSahelanthropus tchadensis," apparently not realizing that an article in Nature reported there are "many... features that link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both," since "Sahelanthropuswas an ape."

Nye calls the fossil mammal Ambulocetus a "walking whale" with "whalelike flippers, and feet with toes." Nye apparently missed a paper in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics which found thatAmbulocetus had "large feet" and called its mode of swimming "inefficient" -- very different from whales. Another paper found that unlike whales, Ambulocetus was tied to freshwater environments and lived near "the mouths of rivers, lunging out at terrestrial prey -- analogous to the hunting process of crocodilians." This mammal had nothing like "whalelike flippers."

There are many other scientific errors in Nye's book, but one more will suffice. ThroughoutUndeniable, Nye attempts to demean humanity by claiming our bodies are poorly designed. Some of his examples -- he quips that our "waste disposal plumbing is immediately adjacent to our reproductive and pleasure producing plumbing" -- cause no biological problems whatsoever, and are not any kind of design flaw. But he also promotes an old canard that the human eye is wired backwards.

According to Nye, "the human eye's light-sensing cells are tucked behind other layers of tissue" which is "not an optimal optical arrangement." He apparently never saw a 2010 paper in Physical Review Letters which found that our eyes have special glial cells which sit over the retina, acting like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the tissue directly onto our photoreceptor cells. According to the paper, the human retina is "an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images." Indeed, just this month a headline at Scientific American reports: "The Purpose of Our Eyes' Strange Wiring Is Unveiled." That article confirms the purpose lies in, "increasing and sharpening our color vision."

Nye tells his readers that the eyes of cephalopods like the octopus have "a better design than yours." But an article at called our retinal glial cells a "design feature," and concluded: "The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly."

Undeniable offers triumphalist statements, with Nye saying things like "The natural world is a package deal; you don't get to select which facts you like and which you don't." Yet his book consistently ignores, or is simply unaware of, facts that contradict his arguments for evolution.

Mostly, however, Nye dismisses Darwin-critics by labeling them as "creationists" and "science deniers" marked by "stubborn ignorance," a lack of "honesty," who "want to suppress" evolution by teaching "fictitious alternatives" in schools. He adopts the customary scare-tactics of censors, arguing that if we allow kids to question Darwinism, then that amounts to an "assault on science," and threatens to throw society back to the Dark Ages:

Our understanding of evolution came to us by exactly the same method of scientific discovery that led to printing presses, polio vaccines, and smartphones. ... What would the deniers have us do? Ignore all the scientific discoveries that make our technologically driven world possible, things like the ability to rotate crops, pump water, generate electricity, and broadcast baseball?

In Nye's vision, humanity's salvation comes from "celebrating evolution" so "we can open more minds and unlock more of our vast human potential."

Yet it is Nye who is doing the disservice to society. By caricaturing the debate over Darwinian evolution as one of enlightened science vs. ignorant religion, Nye uses his position as a spokesman for science to hide from his readers -- many of whom are students -- the facts about legitimate scientific challenges to evolutionary biology being raised by mainstream scientists.

Moreover, by adopting the patently false atheist-supremacist position that Darwin-skeptics can't do good science, Nye's rhetoric discourages many bright young Darwin-doubting students from entering scientific fields. In effect, Nye's own divisive prejudices and discriminatory attitudes towards Darwin-doubters may be hindering his own goals to inspire young people to become scientists and find scientific solutions to problems facing society.


Those who want to read about scientists who raise credible challenges to Darwinian theory might turn to Stephen C. Meyer's 2013 book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.

Meyer, a Cambridge University trained philosopher of science, explains that the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature is saturated with technical papers challenging neo-Darwinian evolution. His challenge to Darwinism is rooted in the Cambrian explosion, an event in the fossil record where many of the major animal phyla appear in a geologically abrupt manner, without evolutionary precursors, some 530 million years ago.

Meyer explains that rapidly building all of these new types of organisms would require the origin of an immense amount of new biological information to specify their diverse body plans. Where does new genetic information come from? He explains:

Our uniform experience of cause and effect shows that intelligent design is the only known cause of the origin of large amounts of functionally specified digital information. It follows that the great infusion of such information in the Cambrian explosion points decisively to an intelligent cause.

Bill Nye also tackles the Cambrian explosion in Undeniable, dismissing it briefly. Apparently using an analogy to smoking a joint, Nye tries to argue that gradual evolution can explain the explosive appearance of new animal life: "If you were to puff on almost anything for 20 million years, you might expect an increase in volume, no?" In his view, the Cambrian explosion simply reflects "an increase in the size and robustness of the shells of invertebrate sea creatures that are inherently better preserved as fossils" and is thus "an artifact of the fossils ... rather than an actual very, very fast production of diversity in species."

The problem for Nye is that paleontologists disagree. As Meyer documents, the Cambrian explosion not only reflects the origin of hard-shelled animals but also the abrupt appearance of many soft-bodied animals as well, such as polychaete worms, lobopods, and various jellyfish-like creatures. Moreover, the consensus of paleontologists agrees that the main pulse of the Cambrian explosion lasted less than 10 million years. Meyer shows that given the mathematics of evolution, this is not enough time for animal body plans to evolve.

Even evolutionary biologists are mystified at how to explain this. As one paper in BioEssaysadmitted in 2009, "elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself."

My present purpose is not to wade into the paleontological details of the Cambrian explosion, but rather to highlight a fascinating scientific debate that Bill Nye obscures. At the same time that mainstream scientists are raising serious scientific challenge to the adequacy of neo-Darwinian evolution, popularizers like Nye are telling the public that those who would question Darwin want to send us back to the days before electricity.

Nye's aggressive atheistic worldview apparently cannot allow him to fathom the possibility that evolutionary biology might not be the right answer. He must cast everything in stark, black-and-white terms, where there are enlightened, honest, and factually correct evolutionists and ignorant, corrupt, and entirely misguided people whom he labels "creationists." There's no room for dialogue, no room for debate.

Unfortunately, Bill Nye's intolerant worldview seems to be rubbing off on many of my Gen-X and Millennial friends. But if they want their views to correspond to reality, they would do better to read Darwin's Doubt, and get a factually-based appreciation for how 21st century science is leaving Bill Nye, and Charles Darwin, behind.

How Does God Foreknow Free Choices?


I have been listening to and reading a lot of your material over the last year, and have been learning a lot - not least from the Defenders podcast. I've been searching in your material for the answer to a specific question, but haven't found it - and therefore I write you now.

I'm trying to sort out the matter of free will and God's foreknowledge, and I've come to understand that there is no contradiction between God's foreknowing a free choice, and that choice being truly free. Foreknowing doesn't equal determining.

But - here is my question: How? How does God foreknow what I would freely choose? I can see how he could foresee my choices if I was determined to make a specific choice, based on my genetics/upbringing/situation. But then the will isn't free - is it?

If God knows the position and speed of every particle in the universe - then he could foresee every future event, where the cause/effect is within the realm of materia. But our free choice isn't.

So - in short: By what means can God know what I would freely choose?

Thanks for your time, and for your great work in the Lord.


Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Are Shell Spirals "Merely" Works of Physics?

Article taken from

statement from CNRS, the French National Centre for Scientific Research, touts research in theJournal of Theoretical Biology. The news release states flatly, "Physics determined ammonite shell shape." It goes on to say that, even though individual shells of different species are "exceptionally diverse," they can all be explained by a biomechanical model.

"Their approach provides new paths for interpreting the evolution of ammonites and nautili," the article boasts. What's missing in this story? Well, it is hidden away behind the word "emergence."

The shape of living organisms evolves over time. The questions raised by this transformation have led to the emergence of theories of evolution. To understand how biological shapes change over a geological time scale, researchers have recently begun to investigate how they are generated during an individual's development and growth: this is known as morphogenesis. Due to the exceptional diversity of their shell shapes and patterns (particularly the ribs), ammonites have been widely studied from the point of view of evolution but the mechanisms underlying the coiled spirals were unknown until now. Researchers therefore attempted to elucidate the evolution of these shapes without knowing how they had emerged. (Emphasis added.)

Ammonite shells are famous for conforming to the Golden Ratio of the Fibonacci sequence (see thismesmerizing artistic video). Strangely, the news release did not mention that. All the researchers called on to do the artwork were forces and rates:

By examining various fossil specimens in light of the simulations produced by the model, the researchers observed that the latter can predict the number and shape of ribs in several ammonites. The model shows that the ornamentation of the shellevolves as a function of variables such as tissue elasticity and shell expansion rate(the rate at which the diameter of the opening increases with each spiral coil).

With their model, they believe they've got the shape solved as well as its evolution:

By providing a biophysical explanation for how these ornamentations form, this theoretical approach explains the diversity existing within and between species. It thus opens new perspectives for the study of the morphological evolution of ammonites, which seems to be largely governed by mechanical and geometric constraints....


More generally, this work highlights the value of studying the physical bases of biological development: understanding the "construction rules" underlying the morphological diversity of organisms makes it possible to partially predict how their shape evolves.

Here's what's missing: information. If cells were not pre-programmed with the ability to secrete proteins and minerals in the right orientations, at the right times, a spiral shell obeying the Fibonacci sequence would not result. If only forces and expansion rates were operating blindly, there would be a chaotic jumble.

What controls the tissue elasticity? The information in DNA. What governs the shell expansion rate? The information in DNA. What determines the geometric constraints? The information in DNA. The ammonite takes advantage of physics, but the shell is not merely a product of physics; it is directed by programmed information.

But critics of intelligent design could argue, don't we find the same spirals in galaxies and hurricanes? Don't they, too, conform to the Fibonacci sequence? Yes, but those phenomena are not directed by DNA to make the spirals for a function. The ammonite shell has a function: to provide a habitat for the squid-like animal inside.

We might compare a natural snowflake to a piece of jewelry imitating a snowflake. The latter has a function -- to be an adornment. No natural law acting on silver ore in the ground is going to produce a snowflake shape by chance in a reasonable amount of time.

Similarly, inanimate forces devoid of information do not pull material out of seawater and organize them into chambered spirals that function as houses for cephalopods. You'll notice that the CNRS researchers call their model a "biophysical" model, not just a physical model. Hidden in the "bio" part is the genetic information that directs the "physical" part.

If the researchers feel that physics alone can produce ammonite spirals, we might ask if physics alone can also produce the video about Fibonacci ratios in nature that we referenced earlier.

The Design Filter can distinguish between phenomena that appear outwardly similar, like the spiral galaxy and the ammonite shell. The former can be explained by natural law and chance. The latter cannot, because the forces available in seawater are inadequate and too improbable. We can therefore not only infer design, but actually observe the information in the DNA acting to produce the result.

Why would the universe be organized in such a way that the Fibonacci sequence shows up in so many places, including in non-living objects like spiral galaxies and hurricanes? If natural laws are contingent, the number of possible universes allowing such outcomes must be vanishingly small. This suggests even deeper levels of design in the fabric of the universe. As William Dembski argues in his new book Being as Communion, it's "information all the way down."

Do We Live in a "Golden Ratio" Universe?

Original Article from

Writing recently about the Golden Ratio, we described how spiral shells grow according to that special ratio, designated by the Greek letter phi (φ = 1.618...), based on the Fibonacci series, that the human eye finds pleasing. Since hurricanes and spiral galaxies also follow the same proportions, it seems that natural laws can explain how non-living spirals in hurricanes and galaxies will grow, but living things like ammonite shells require genetic instructions. This is evidence of intelligent design, because no natural law pulls silicon out of seawater and fashions it into exquisite spirals without being directed by a code. The ubiquity of φ in so many unrelated phenomena, both living and nonliving, suggests a deeper level of design in the universe.

Now two scientists from South Africa say that φ is the key to unifying all of science. A news item from the University of Witwatersrand ("Wits" for short) in Johannesburg summarizes an article of scientific correspondence by Jan Boeyens, a former Wits University Professor and now at the Centre for Advancement of Scholarship at the University of Pretoria, and Professor Francis Thackeray, a paleontologist at Wits University's Evolutionary Studies Institute. Writing in the South African Journal of Science, "Number Theory and the Unity of Science," Boeyens and Thackeray relate an astonishing list of apparently unrelated phenomena that follow the Golden Ratio:

  • The curl of an elephant tusk
  • The shape of a kudu's horn
  • Hurricane spirals
  • The distribution of planets in the solar system
  • A biological species constant, T
  • The spiral structure of the cochlea ear-bone in a fossil hominin
  • The logarithmic spirals of galaxies
  • The structure of DNA
  • The growth of many plants (phyllotaxis)
  • The Periodic Table of the Elements
  • Spiral shells of certain mollusks, like snails
  • Spiral shells of living and extinct ammonites
  • Stress patterns in nanomaterials
  • The stability of atomic nuclides
  • The topology of space-time

Boeyens even says that "concepts associated with relativity and quantum mechanics can be integrated, through the number 1.618." He shows briefly how this is done.

To Boeyens and Thackeray, this evidence suggests a deep relationship in the fabric of space-time that includes biology:

We suggest that there is a strong case that this so-called 'Golden Ratio' (1.61803...) can be related not only to aspects of mathematics but also to physics, chemistry,biology and the topology of space-time....

Apart from the Golden Ratio, a second common factor among this variety of structures is that they all represent spontaneous growth patterns. The argumentthat this amazing consilience ('self-similarity') arises from a response to a common environmental constraint, which can only be an intrinsic feature of curved space-time, is compelling. (Emphasis added.)

In concluding, they argue for the unification of all the sciences around the Golden Ratio:

The time has come to recognise that relativity and quantum theories can be integrated, and linked numerically to the value of a mathematical constant -- whether in the context of space-time or biology.

They never explain, though, why this should be so. Is it a requirement of any universe in a multiverse that it must follow the Golden Ratio? That idea would seem hard to defend; advocates of a multiverse typically agree that physical parameters could take on any values, because they wish to avoid the conclusion that our universe's fine-tuned values were chosen by design. We live in a fine-tuned universe, they say, by luck: we won the Cosmic Lottery. A higher-level principle of natural selection dictates that complex life can only appear in a universe like ours.

Multiverse speculations might account for a finite set of lucky draws, but could it explain an all-pervasive ratio like φ? Could you have a universe with constants of gravity, electrical charges, and cosmological constant like ours, but with its space-time fabric following some other proportion? Why not? φ is an irrational number derived from a mathematical series, the Fibonacci series. There are plenty of other numerical series around. Why is a consistent mathematical form even necessary for a universe?

These are deep questions that can only be tested philosophically, because we only have one universe to observe. But it must strike any reasonable person as uncanny that so many phenomena are unified by a certain number, 1.618..., derived from a mathematical series, that permits the existence of "endless forms most beautiful." The idea that nature can be unified in this manner is consistent with intelligent design in two ways: (1) Most contingent values of fundamental constants would preclude observers, and (2) the Golden Ratio gives the universe a beautiful form that aesthetically minded observers can appreciate.