Home  |  Search  |  Contact  
Order Book   |  Read Book Online  |  Testimonials  
 You are in / Foolish Faith / Read Book Online / Conclusion / Footnotes
"Regular experience, not negligible probabilities and remote possibilities, is the basis of science."
»  Conclusion of Foolish Faith
- Part 1 2 3 4 5 6



[1] Even Stephen Hawking acknowledges the beginning of the existence of the universe, regardless of his proposal of a timeless universe using imaginary time. See Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996).

[2] See Stephen Jay Gould, “Dorothy, It’s Really Oz,” Time, vol. 154, no. 8, August 23, 1999.

[3] P. Grassé, Evolution du Vivant ((New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977)).

[4] Many proponents of evolution subscribe to a set of naturalistic and mechanistic — if not atheistic — presuppositions, which disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in examining matters concerning origins and science.

[5] Dr. Colin Patterson, keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, New York, November 5, 1981.

[6] That is, until a mutation has been observed to improve the DNA code by producing new meaningful information (or instructions), there is no proof that any mechanism (mutations or otherwise) can account for the evolution of living things.

[7] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. This quote typifies the self-confessed atheistic motivation of many leaders today in the scientific community.

[8] However, there may be certain “truths” that can be extracted from several religions at once.

[9] Except those such as the fellows of the Jesus Seminar, whose work is so erroneous it has been progressively discredited even by liberal non- Christian scholars — see Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, general editors, Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995).

[10] There is no reason scientifically because the possibility of a miracle does not contradict science or any known facts of experience.

[11] A random mutation is not likely to improve an organism’s genetic code any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance. – University biology textbook

[12] “DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life,” article by Charles B. Thaxton, http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html