Christian apologists are surely aware of the modern Anthropic Principle, a phrase first popularized by Barrow and Tipler’s 1988 work, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press. The “strong form” of the insight addresses the values of the fundamental constants of physics.

Scientists such as Robert H. Dicke, Fred Hoyle, John Gribbin, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and numerous others, agree that our universe possesses these physical constraints. However relatively recent it may appear to be in the scientific literature, it has been stated at least as early as 1833, and I’m sure there are other occasions where it can be found earlier.

William Whewell was a 19th century English polymath, scientist, Anglican priest, philosopher, theologian, and historian of science, not to mention Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. As a curious matter of fact, he was the first to coin the term “scientist.”

During Whewell’s time, debates raged over the relationship of natural theology and the new discoveries and findings of modern science. A certain Earl of Bridgewater, gentleman naturalist, commissioned eight Bridgewater Treatises upon his deathbed to explore “the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.” Whewell’s work was the third in the series. The treatises are:

1. The Adaptation of External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Condition of Man, by Thomas Chalmers, D. D.
2. On The Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Condition of Man, by John Kidd, M. D.
3. Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Whewell, D. D.
4. The hand, its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as evincing Design, by Sir Charles Bell.
5. Animal and Vegetable Physiology considered with reference to Natural Theology, by Peter Mark Roget.
6. Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Buckland, D.D.
7. On the History, Habits and Instincts of Animals, by William Kirby.
8. Chemistry, Meteorology, and the Function of Digestion, considered with reference to Natural Theology, by William Prout, M.D.

Dr. Whewell’s task was to argue for the existence of God as evidenced by the findings of astronomy and general physics. In a section on “The Length of the Year” he made this observation:

“The length of the year or interval of recurrence of the seasons is determined by the time which the earth employs in performing its revolution round the sun: and we can very easily conceive the solar system so adjusted that the year should be longer or shorter than it actually is. We can imagine the earth to revolve round the sun at a distance greater or less than that which it at present has, all the forces of the system remaining unaltered. If the earth were removed towards the centre by about one-eighth of its distance, the year would be diminished by about a month; and in the same manner it would be increased by a month on increasing the distance by one-eighth.

We can suppose the earth at a distance of 84 or 108 millions of miles, just as easily as at its present distance of 96 millions: we can suppose the earth with its present stock of animals and vegetables placed where Mars or where Venus is, and revolving in an orbit like one of theirs: on the former supposition our year would become twenty- three, on the latter seven of our present months. Or we can conceive the present distances of the parts of the system to continue what they are, and the size, or the density of the central mass, the sun, to be increased or diminished in any proportion; and in this way the time of the earth’s revolution might have been increased or diminished in any degree; a greater velocity, and consequently a diminished period, being requisite, in order to balance an augmented central attraction. In any of these ways the length of the earths natural year might have been different from what it now is: in the last way without any necessary alteration, so far as we can see, of temperature.

Now, if any change of this kind were to take place, the working of the botanical world would be thrown into utter disorder, the functions of plants would be entirely deranged, and the whole vegetable kingdom involved in instant decay and rapid extinction.”

You may find his work in various formats here: (happy reading!)

Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

Being a techno-nerd, I frequent sites like Engadget and Gizmodo. So, imagine my surprise when I spied this recent headline from Gizmodo: “The Possibility of Alien Life Is Now (Almost) Impossible to Deny.” Hmmm… Zat’s so? Now just what sort of evidence would lead to such a compelling conclusion? Seems it boils down pretty much to one thing: probability.

Because “our galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets…This means that the chances of life and habitable planets in our galaxy alone is overwhelmingly high. So high that it’s impossible to deny that it’s out there.” (emphasis mine).

The author continues, “Couple this number with the latest calculations that have extended the goldilocks zone, the area where life could happen around stars. And then add the fact that life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions, and the idea of a Milky Way thriving with life is impossible to deny.” Did you catch that – the part about “the fact” that “life happens spontaneously, even under the most extreme conditions.”? Seems this author has been spending WAY too much time in the Orgasmatron of wishful thinkng. He just accepts it as an apriori that life happens spontaneously. Hey, why didn’t I think of that?

Now I think I’d be as excited as the next kid on the block if we found real, honest-to-God sentient life outside our planet. Some of my favorite movies include ET, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 2001, A Space Odyssey and Star Trek. But, then maybe, as Stephen Hawking said, we wouldn’t be very happy with our new found friends because they would probably kill us without batting an eye (or whatever it is that they see with).

Truth is, not all scientists are gaga about ET. Enrico Fermi famously asked in a 1950 conversation with fellow scientists, “Where is everybody?” His thoughts have become known as Fermi’s Paradox: the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Paul Davies, world-renowned theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist, says plainly, “Despite this sea change in thinking, there is still not a shred of evidence for any life beyond Earth, intelligent or otherwise. Instead of the hoped-for clamour of interstellar messages, there is only an eerie silence.” Davies considers the best thinking on this subject in his 2010 book: “The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence.” It is a balanced look at the scientific evidence, in contrast to the ET-lust that we see from many today.

Then we have John Gribbin, astronomer and science writer, whose new book, “Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique” comes to the same, boring conclusion as Davies. He sums up his 205 page analysis: “On a planet like the earth, life may only get one shot at technology – we have exhausted the easily accessible supplies of raw materials, so if we destroy ourselves the next intelligent species, if there is one, won’t have the necessary raw materials to get started. There are no second chances. And that is the last piece of evidence that completes the resolution of the Fermi paradox. They are not here, because they do not exist. The reasons why we are here form a chain so improbable that the chance of any other technological civilization existing in the Milky Way Galaxy at the present time is vanishingly small. We are alone, and we had better get used to the idea.”

And so again we have science divided on yet another crucial matter. Why the great rush to find ET? I can’t really explain it. But what bothers me is this: Why am I considered unintelligent because I believe in God – the Ultimate ET, when certain scientists look for a demigod? Their search is just not big enough.

Come to think of it, I actually do, for God’s sake (pardon the pun), believe in extra-terrestrial life – because as a Christian I believe that an eternal, omnipotent and loving being exists – and we call Him God. I seem to remember when I was younger seeing a book in a used book store with the title, “The Visited Planet.” (Can’t find it now – but if you run across it, please email me, will you?) The truth is, our planet has been visited by “aliens”, most notably one Jesus Christ. And we have a record of these visits, the Bible. Why not look into what we have here and now as earnestly as we expect to find something extra – out there? Chew on that one for a while.

See links below to books and articles referenced:

Alien Life: …Impossible to Deny

Davies Skeptical of ET

John Gribbin: Alone in the Universe

I’m a firm believer that faith lost can become faith regained. If that makes me an outcast at the latest Calvinist Meet-up then so be it. The Scriptures are unambiguously clear on this. In any event, I’ve been reading stories from those who lost their faith and then reflected upon what it’s meant to them. This is not my “I told you so” moment, but a look into the eye of a lost faith and its meaning to those who tell it.

I’d love to be able to say that all these stories have a happy ending. Some do. Some do not. But, for the record, it ain’t over till it’s over. In the meantime, we pray for those in the abyss of doubt and disillusionment.

With that in mind, I present to you some thoughts from Margaret Wheeler Johnson, Huffington Post’s Women vertical editor. I offer no commentary, no reflection. There are others like it I’ll post in the future, so keep your eyes open for them soon.

Losing My Religion: If I’m So Done With Faith, Why Do I Still Feel Its Loss?

So Josef Stalin had a daughter, Svetlana Iosifovna Alliluyeva. And two sons. One son was captured by the Nazis in 1941 and died in a concentration camp. The other son died an alcoholic at age 40. Svetlana defected to the United States in 1967. Her father had served 12 years as Premier of the Soviet Union, where his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers.

Yet even living in the godless Soviet Union, with her father as its Premier, Svetlana saw through this hopelessly misguided worldview and believed:

“it was impossible to exist without God in one’s heart.”

And so Jesus’ words come true again:

“…upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

See the full article here:

Stalin’s Daughter Dies

The Grace Effect

There’s “hard apologetics” where we engage the merits of philosophical, scientific and Biblical issues head-on. Then, there’s “soft apologetics” where life itself dictates the issues and nudges us toward reality. This book falls into the “soft apologetics” category.

Larry Taunton is the Founder and Director of the Fixed-Point Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to the public defense of the Christian faith. Fixed-Point is at pains to show that Christianity is the viable worldview in a culture where some discount it as a relic of a bygone era. Accordingly, Fixed-Point has hosted debates between such rivals as John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, Lennox and Peter Singer and David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens.

The book begins with a midnight dinner discussion among Taunton, Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox. Lennox and Hitchens had just ended their debate an few hours earlier and now carry it on in an amicable discussion in a nearby restaurant. The talk was turning to Hitler and his place in the pantheon of twentieth century atheistic dictators. Hitchens would have nothing of it. Hitchens and several other “new atheists” are not shy that the world would be a better place without Christianity.

Larry writes, “Sometimes these discussions can degenerate into a body count. The atheist will say, ‘Christians were responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials.’ The Christian will counter, ‘Atheists were responsible for Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.’ The reasoning is not sound, and this particular conversation seemed headed in that direction.” So Taunton doesn’t go there. Instead, he asks Hitchens which worldview leads society into a more humane, caring place, atheism or Christianity? Which is more prone to care for the poor and elderly, the orphan, the sick and disadvantaged?

This book takes the debate to a micro-level by looking at the process of adopting a young ten year old orphan girl from Ukraine. Taunton tells the story powerfully because it is his family who adopts her. Ukraine, of course, is part of the former USSR, where atheism was official state policy. It did its best to eradicate Christian teaching and influence during its 70 year history. Unfortunately, it was quite effective. On the other hand, it provides a dramatic picture of what life is like in a country where leaders do not believe in, much less, fear God.

The rest of the book takes us into the sad world of the Ukranian orphanage system. It seems as if the system is geared to make it as difficult as possible to adopt. Along the way we learn that bribery is a well-understood part of the process. Everyone wants a piece of the action. And to make it to the finish line, you have to play their game. Petty players in small positions of power wield it mercilessly. You must set your expectations incredibly low and even then you are surprised at the corruption.

Some say that Taunton is too hard on Ukraine. That he has created a strawman by focusing on the worst aspect of a culture and amplified it to attack a broader worldview. Maybe so. But maybe not. I’ve never been to Ukraine. Others, however, validate his account. Sasha herself provides a picture of grace and faith in God that no amount of arguing over the kalam cosmological argument could ever match. I simply commend the book to you for serious reflection on which culture you’d rather live in – one dominated by a worldview that seeks power “over others” or one that honors the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, who said:

“Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”

The Grace Effect