INFORMATION SCIENCE LAWS

SLI-1: A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity. SLI-2: ni!er"al in#ormation i" a non-material #$n%amental entity. SLI-&: ni!er"al in#ormation cannot 'e create% 'y "tati"tical (roce""e". SLI-): ni!er"al in#ormation can only 'e (ro%$ce% 'y an intelligent "en%er. )a: Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver. )': There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender. )c: Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender. )%: Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence. *e"ign: 1. Functionality 2. Ergonomics ease of use !. "evel of information#bearing The desert dunes have pattern take a photo$ get your kid to count de dunes and you%ll have proof of intelligent design. The snow flake has a beautiful pattern$ but what if the water didn%t have the ice state$ would life on earth be possible& "ife is important'' That%s why Earth has a privileged status$ or a very high status because of the level of information(design(life that it contains. There are ) million clinical deaths$ why there are any animal clinical deaths. 1. +o% e,i"t"- re#$tation o# at.ei"m *ecause it can be established that all forms of life contain a code +,-A$ .-A/$ as well as all of the other levels of information$ we are within the domain of our definition of information. 0e can therefore conclude that1 2 There must be an intelligent sender' 3Applying 4"5#67 /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion *ecause there has never been a process in the material world$ demonstrable through observation or e8periment$ in which information has arisen by without prior intelligence$ then that also must be valid for all the information present in living things. Furthermore$ what we do observe about information9namely that it intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it$ as defined by 4"5#6d9e8cludes the possibility of information coming from non#intelligence. Thus 4"5#6b requires here$ too$ an intelligent author who :wrote; the programs. <onclusion 1 is therefore also a refutation of atheism. The top of figure 2 outlines the realm that is$ in principle$ inaccessible to natural science= namely1 0ho is the message sender& To answer that the sender cannot e8ist because the methods of human science +scientific boundary/ cannot perceive him$ both misapplies science and is untenable according to the laws of information. The requirement that there must be a personal sender e8ercising his own free will cannot be relinquished. This 4ender$ the <reator$ has revealed >imself so that we do have information about him. >e$ ?esus$ was in the world and the world was made through >im +?ohn 111@/. 2. T.ere i" only one go%0 1.o i" all 2no1ing an% eternal The information encoded in ,-A far e8ceeds all our current technologies. >ence$ no human being could possibly qualify as the sender$ who must therefore be sought outside of our visible world. 0e can conclude that1 There is only one sender$ who must not only be e8ceptionally intelligent but must possess an infinitely large amount of information and intelligence$ i.e. he must be omniscient all knowing/$ and beyond that must also be eternal. 3Applying 4"5#1$ 4"5#2$ 4"5#6b7

/a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion Fig$re 2. The origin of life. 5f one considers living things as unknown systems that can be analysed with the help of natural laws$ then one finds all five levels of the definition of information1 statistics +here left off for simplicity/$ synta8$ semantics$ pragmatics and apobetics. 5n accordance with the natural laws of information$ the origin of any information requires a sender equipped with intelligence and will. The fact that the sender in this case is not observable is not in contradiction to these laws. 5n a huge library with thousands of volumes$ the authors are also not visible= but no one would maintain that there was no author for all this information. 5f one penetrates beyond the boundaries set by the limits of natural science by consulting the *ible$ the 4ender reveals >imself as the Almighty <reator. According to 4"5#6b$ at the beginning of every chain of information there is an intelligent sender. 0hen one applies this to biological information$ then here$ too$ there must an intelligent author of the information. 5n ,-A molecules we find the highest density of information known to us.1 *ecause of 4"5#1$ no conceivable processes in the material realm qualify as the source of this information. >umans$ who can$ of course$ generate information +e.g. letters$ books/$ are also obviously e8cluded as the source of this biological information. This leaves only a sender who operated outside of our normal physical world. After a lecture at a university about biological information and the necessary sender$ a young lady student said to me1 :5 can tell where you were heading when you spoke of an intelligent sender9you meant Aod. 5 can accept that as far as it goes= without a sender$ that is$ without Aod$ it wouldnBt work. *ut who informed Aod so that >e could program the ,-A molecules&; Two e8planations spring to mind1 E,(lanation a31 5magine that this god was considerably more intelligent than we are$ but nevertheless limited. "etBs assume furthermore that he had so much intelligence +thus information/ at his disposal that he was able to program all biological systems. The obvious question then is1 who gave him this information and who taught him& This would require a higher information#giver 51$ that is$ a :super#god;$ who knew more than Aod. 5f 51 knew more than Aod$ but was also limited$ then he would in turn require an information#giver 529i.e. a :super# super#god;. 4o this line of reasoning leads to an e8tension of this series95!$ 56 C to 5infinity. Dne would require an infinite number of gods$ such that in this long chain every n 1th deity always knew more than the nth. Dnly once one reached the 5infinity super#super#super C . god$ could we say such a god would be unlimited and all knowing. >owever$ traversing an infinite is impossible +whether it is a temporal$ spatial or$ as in this e8ample$ an ontological infinity/ and so this e8planation is unsatisfactory. E,(lanation '31 5t is more simple and satisfying to assume only a single sender9a prime mover$ an ultimate creator god. *ut then one would need to also assume that such a god is infinitely intelligent and in command of an infinite amount of information. 4o he must be all knowing +omniscient/. To answer that the sender cannot e8ist because the methods of human science +scientific boundary/ cannot perceive him$ both misapplies science and is untenable according to the laws of information. 0hich of the e8planations a/ and b/ is correct& *oth are logically equivalent. Thus we must make a decision that is not derived from the 4"5 based on the following considerations. 5n reality$ there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of anything. The number of atoms in the universe is unimaginably vast$ but nevertheless finite$ and thus in principle able to be counted. The total number of people$ ants$ or grains of wheat that have ever e8isted is also vast$ but finite. Although infinity is a useful mathematical abstraction$ the fact is that in reality there can be no such thing as an infinite number of anything that can be reached by counting for long enough. Thus e8planation a/ fails the test of plausibility$ leaving only e8planation b/. That means there is only one sender. *ut this one sender must therefore be all knowing. This conclusion is a consequence of consistently applying the laws of nature about information. 5t has led us to the same conclusion as that which the *ible also teaches1 there is only one Aod= :5 am the first and 5 am the last= apart from me there is no Aod; +5saiah 661E/. 0hat does it mean that Aod +the author of biological information$ the <reator/$ is infinite& 5t means that for >im there is no question that >e cannot answer$ and >e knows all things. -ot merely about present and the past= even the future is not hidden from >im. *ut if >e knows all things9even beyond all restrictions of time 9then >e >imself must be eternal. 4o through logical reasoning +without the *ible/ we have found out why it says in .omans 112@ that from contemplating the works of creation we can conclude the eternal power of Aod. The *ible also attests to AodBs eternality +e.g. Fsalm G@12= 5saiah 6@12)= ,aniel E12E/.

&. +o% i" immen"ely (o1er#$l *ecause the sender1 2 ingeniously encoded the information into the ,-A molecules$ 2 must have designed the comple8 bio#machinery that decodes the information and carries out all the processes of biosynthesis$ and 2 created all the details of the original construction and reproductive capacities of all living things$ 0e can conclude that1 2 The sender accomplished his purpose and$ therefore$ he must be powerful. /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion 5n conclusion 2$ we determined on the basis of laws of nature that the sender +<reator$ Aod/ must be all knowing and eternal. -ow we consider the question of the e8tent of >is power. :Fower; encompasses all that which would be described under headings such as strength$ creativity$ capability and might. Fower of this sort is absolutely necessary in order to have created all living things. *ecause of >is infinite knowledge$ the sender knows$ for e8ample$ how ,-A molecules can be programmed. *ut this knowledge is not sufficient to fashion such molecules in the first place. Taking the step from mere knowledge to practical application requires the capacity to be able to build all the necessary biomachinery in the first place. .esearch enables us to observe these :hardware systems;. *ut we do not see them come about other than through a coordinated process of cellular replication which requires the same biomachinery to transmit and carry out the replication programs. Thus they had to originally be constructed by the sender. >e had the task of creating the immense variety of all the basic biological types +created kinds/$ including the construction specifications for their biological machinery. There are no physio#chemical tendencies in raw matter for comple8 information#bearing molecules to form spontaneously. 0ithout creative power$ life would not have been possible. The obvious question here is the same as in conclusion 21 who gave >im this power& This would require a higher power#giver0 F1$ that is0 a :super#god;$ who has more than Aod. 5f we proceed as shown before according to e8planation a/ and b/$ we come to the conclusion that the sender must be all powerful. 0e canBt even begin to quantify the enormous degree of power required to create life on Earth originally. *ut the *ible shows us the real e8tent of the senderBs power by presenting >im as all powerful9omnipotent$ almighty1 :H5 am the Alpha and the Dmega$B says the "ord Aod$ Hwho is$ and who was$ and who is to come$ the AlmightyB; +.evelation 11)/. :For nothing is impossible with Aod; +"uke 11!I/. ). +o% i" non-material *ecause information is a non#material fundamental entity$ it cannot originate from a material one. 0e can therefore conclude that1 The sender must have a non#material component +spirit/ to his nature. 3Applying 4"5#1$ 4"5#27 /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion Jnaided matter has never been observed to generate information in the natural#law sense$ +i.e. with all five levels1 statistics$ synta8$ semantics$ pragmatics$ apobetics/. 5nformation is a non#material entity and therefore requires for its origin a non#material source. 0e have already reasoned our way to some characteristics of the sender. -ow we have a further one= he must be of a non#material nature$ or at least must possess a non#material component to his nature. That is e8actly what the *ible teaches in ?ohn 61261 :Aod is spirit$ and >is worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.; 4. No .$man 'eing 1it.o$t a "o$l: re#$tation o# materiali"m *ecause people have the ability to create information$ this cannot originate from our material portion +body/. 0e can therefore conclude that1 Each person must have a non#material component +spirit$ soul/. 3Applying 4"5#1$ 4"5#27

/a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion Evolutionary biology is locked into an e8clusively materialistic paradigm. .eductionism +in which e8planations are limited e8clusively to the realm of the material/ has been elevated to a fundamental principle within the evolutionary paradigm. 0ith the aid of the laws of information$ materialism may be refuted as follows1 0e all have the capacity to create new information. 0e can put our thoughts down in letters$ essays and books$ or carry on creative conversations and give lectures. 5n the process$ we are producing a non#material entity$ namely information. +The fact that we need a material substrate to store and transfer information has no bearing on the nature of information itself./ From this we can draw a very important conclusion1 namely that besides our material body we must have a non#material component. The philosophy of materialism$ which found its strongest e8pression in Kar8ism#"eninism and communism$ can now be scientifically refuted with the help of the scientific laws about information. The *ible$ too$ corroborates the above conclusion that a person is not purely material. 1 Thessalonians L12! says1 :Kay Aod >imself$ the Aod of peace$ sanctify you through and through. Kay your whole spirit$ soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our "ord ?esus <hrist.; The body is the material component of a person$ while spirit and soul are non#material. 5. /ig 'ang i" im(o""i'le 4ince information is a non#material entity$ the assertion that the universe arose solely from matter and energy +scientific materialism/ is demonstrably false. 3Applying 4"1#27 /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion 5t is widely asserted today that the universe owes its origin to a primeval e8plosion in which only matter and energy was available. Everything that we e8perience$ observe and measure in our world is$ according to this view$ solely the result of these two physical entities. Energy is clearly a material entity$ since it is correlated with matter through EinsteinBs mass(energy equivalence relationship E M mc2. 5s this :big bang theory; Nust as refutable as a perpetual motion machine& Answer1 OE4$ with the help of the scientific laws about information. 5n our world we find an abundance of information such as in the cells of all living things. According to 4"5#1$ information is a non#material entity and therefore cannot possibly have arisen from unaided matter and energy. Thus the common big bang worldview is false. The *ible$ too$ teaches that this world has not arisen from a process of over billions of years but through creation by an all#powerful Aod in si8 days. 4o we read in E8odus 2@1111 :For in si8 days the "ord made the heavens and the earth$ the sea$ and all that is in them$ but >e rested on the seventh day.; 6. No e!ol$tion 4ince 1. biological information +the fundamental component of all life/ originates only from an intelligent sender$ and 2. all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must have originated solely from matter and energy +no sender/$ we conclude that1 All theories or concepts of chemical and biological evolution +macroevolution/ are false. 3Applying 4"5#1$ 4"5#2$ 4"5#6b$ 4"5#6d7 /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion ?udging by its worldwide following$ evolution has become probably the most widespread teaching of our time. 5n accordance with its basic precepts$ we see an ongoing attempt to e8plain all life on a purely physical(chemical plane +reductionism/. The reductionists prefer to think of a seamless transition from the non# living to the living. 0ith the help of the laws of information we can reach a comprehensive and fundamental conclusion1 the idea of macroevolution9i.e. the Nourney from chemicals to primordial cell to man9is false. 5nformation is a fundamental and absolutely necessary factor for all living things. *ut all information9and living systems are not e8cluded9must necessarily have a non#material source. The evolutionary model$ in the light of the laws of information$ shows itself to be an :intellectual perpetual motion machine;. The <reatorBs program is so ingeniously conceived that it even permits a wide range of adaptations to new circumstances.

-ow the question arises1 where do we find the sender of the information stored within the ,-A molecules& 0e donBt observe him$ so did this information somehow come about in a molecular biological fashion& The answer is the same as that in the following cases1 <onsider the wealth of information preserved in Egypt in hieroglyphics. -ot a single stone allows us to see any part of the sender. 0e only find these :footprints; of his or her e8istence chiselled into stone. *ut no one would claim that this information arose without a sender and without a mental concept. 5n the case of two connected computers e8changing information and setting off certain processes$ there is also no trace of a sender. >owever$ all the information concerned also arose at some point from the thought processes of one +or more/ programmers. The information in ,-A molecules is transferred to .-A molecules= this occurs in an analogous fashion to a computer transferring information to another computer. 5n the cell0 an e8ceptionally comple8 system of biomachinery is at work which translates the programmed commands in an ingenious fashion. *ut we see nothing of the sender. >owever$ to ignore him would be a scientifically untenable reductionism. 0e shouldnBt be surprised to find that the programs devised by the sender of biological information are much more ingenious than all of our human programs. After all$ we are here dealing with +as already e8plained in conclusion 2/ a sender of infinite intelligence. The <reatorBs program is so ingeniously conceived that it even permits a wide range of adaptations to new circumstances. 5n biology$ such processes are referred to as :microevolution;. >owever$ they have nothing to do with an actual evolutionary process in the way this word is normally used$ but are properly understood as :parameter optimiPations; within the same kind. In 'rie#: The laws of information e8clude a macro#evolution of the sort envisaged by the general theory of evolution. *y contrast$ microevolutionary processes +M programmed genetic variation/$ with their frequently wide#ranging adaptive processes within a kind$ are e8plicable with the help of ingenious programs instituted by the <reator. The *ible emphasises repeatedly in the account of creation that all plants and animals were created after their kind. This is repeated nine times in the first chapter of the *ible$ e.g. Aenesis 1126 2L1 :And Aod said$ H"et the land produce living creatures according to their kinds1 livestock$ creatures that move along the ground$ and wild animals$ each according to its kind.B And it was so. Aod made the wild animals according to their kinds$ the livestock according to their kinds$ and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And Aod saw that it was good.; 7. No li#e #rom ($re matter *ecause the distinguishing characteristic of life is a non#material entity +namely information/ matter cannot have given rise to it. From this we conclude that1 There is no process inherent within matter alone that leads from non#living chemicals to life. -o purely material processes$ whether on the earth or elsewhere in the universe$ can give rise to life. 3Applying 4"5#17 /a"i" #or t.i" concl$"ion Froponents of evolutionary theory assert that :"ife is a purely material phenomenon$ which will arise whenever the right conditions are present.; >owever$ the most universal and distinguishing characteristic of life9 information9is of a non#material nature. Thus we can apply scientific law 4"5#1$ which says1 :A purely material entity cannot generate a non#material entity.; Even under the very best chemical conditions$ accompanied by optimal physical conditions$ there would still be no hope of life developing. Figure ! shows an ant with a microchip. Kicrochips are the storage elements of present#day computers and they represent matter plus information. The ant contains one material part +matter/ and two non#material parts +information and life/. 0e repeatedly hear of the discovery of water somewhere in our planetary system +e.g. on ?upiterBs moon Europa/$ or that carbon#containing substances have been found somewhere in our gala8y. These announcements are promptly followed by speculations that life could have developed there. This repeatedly

reinforces the impression that so long as the necessary chemical elements or molecules are present on some astronomical body$ and certain astronomical(physical conditions are fulfilled$ one can more or less count on life being there. *ut as we have shown with the help of two laws$ this is impossible. Even under the very best chemical conditions$ accompanied by optimal physical conditions$ there would still be no hope of life developing. Fig$re &. Ant carrying a microchip. *oth the ant and the microchip contain information$ a non#material entity$ that cannot be generated by a material entity and which points to intelligent$ creative input. The ant$ moreover$ contains two non#material parts1 information and life. +From1 H0erkbild FhilipsB$ with the kind permission of HQalvo Jnternehmensbereich *auelementeB$ of Fhilips Amb>$ >amburg/. 4ince the phenomenon of life ultimately requires something non#material$ every kind of living thing required a mind as its ultimate initiator. The four Australian scientists Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland thus correctly state1 :0ithout intelligent$ creative input$ lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. The idea that they can is the theory of spontaneous generation$ disproved by the great creationist founder of microbiology$ "ouis Fasteur.; 0ith this new type of approach$ applying the laws of information$ <onclusions I and ) have both shown us that we can e8clude the spontaneous origin of life in matter. Concl$"ion -o one has ever observed water flowing uphill. 0hy are there no e8ceptions to this& *ecause there is a law of nature that universally e8cludes this process from happening. Kany plausible arguments have been raised against the teachings of atheism$ materialism$ evolution and the big bang worldview. *ut if it is possible to find scientific laws that contradict these ideas$ then$ since scientific laws have the highest degree of scientific credibility possible$ we will have scientifically falsified them. 0e will have done so Nust as effectively as the way in which perpetual motion machines +those which supposedly run forever without any energy from outside/ have been shown to be impossible through the application of scientific laws. This is precisely what we have demonstrated in this paper. 0e have presented four scientific laws about information. From these we can generate comprehensive conclusions about Aod$ the origin of life$ and humanity. 0ith the help of laws of information we have been able to refute all of the following1 The purely materialistic approach in the natural sciences. All current notions of evolution +chemical$ biological/. Katerialism +e.g. man as purely matter plus energy/. The big bang as the cause of this universe. Atheism.

INTELI+ENT *ESI+N 8 INITIAL 9ROOF

W.en con"i%ering t.e ama:ing 'ea$ty o# nat$re0 o$r o1n 'eing0 an% t.e t.ing" aro$n% $"0 t.ere are not many o(tion" to c.oo"e #rom. Either all of this is the product of intentional intelligent %e"ign0 or it i" not. <onsidering the astounding scientific discoveries of the past 1@@ years$ what makes more sense& Oou be the Nudge. 5f we can reasonably conclude$ considering all the evidence$ that there is significant evidence for intelligent design throughout the universe$ then we must consider the possibility that an all#knowing$ all powerful$ personal ,esigner is behind it all. And we must come to grips with the implications of that. Con"i%er t.e e!i%ence ...

Mo%ern Scienti#ic *i"co!erie" S.o1 E!i%ence o# Intelligent *e"ign

A .$n%re% year" ago t.ing" 1ere m$c. %i##erent. -o massive telescopes e8isted that allow us to peer back into the dawn of time. -o theory of relativity. -o satellites. -ot even TQ e8isted' *ut a lot has changed since 1G@L. Today is like no other time in history. At no other time in history do we have more evidence from science concerning the Rfine#tuningR of our universe. "et%s consider some recent "cienti#ic %i"co!erie" that point to evidence for intelligent design in the universe...

1;1;: /en%ing Star Lig.t S$((ort" +eneral T.eory o# Relati!ity. ,uring a solar eclipse$ 4ir Arthur Eddington observed
the bending of starlight passing by the sun$ matching the effect predicted by Einstein%s Aeneral Theory of .elativity. Although Einstein%s theory had predicted that either the universe was either e8panding or contracting$ he initially modified his theory to support the prevailing scientific notion that the universe had always e8isted$ and was therefore in a Rsteady stateR. This fudge factor$ which he called a Rcosmological constantR$ was later withdrawn by Einstein after he had e8amined the evidence put forth by 4ir Edmond >ubble +see below/$ 4oviet Aleksandr Friedmann$ and others. Einstein admitted that the universe must have had a beginning. >e later referred to the employment of this cosmological constant as the Rgreatest blunderR of his career.

 1;26: T.at t.e +ala,ie" Are All Retreating From ". 0hile peering through the 1@@ inch >ooker telescope at the Kt.
0ilson observatory in <alifornia$ American astronomer Edwin >ubble discovered that the spectra of many nebulae tended to be RshiftedR toward the longer wavelength$ red end of the electromagnetic spectrum +as compared to the 4un and other nearby stars/. *y combining the red shift data with distance measurements$ he discovered that the more distant a nebulae +or star/$ the greater its red shift. Essentially >ubble had discovered that the galaxies are all retreating from us. The farther gala8ies are retreating faster than the nearer ones +now known to occur only out to a distance of about I billion light years/$ as if space itself is stretching. Although many scientists still wanted to cling to the Rsteady stateR theory of the past$ the evidence pointed to a rapidly expanding universe that of necessity had finite past.

1;54: Co"mic /ac2gro$n% Ra%iation *etecte% - Remnant o# t.e /ig /ang. Arno FenPias and .obert 0ilson discovered
cosmic background radiation coming from every point in the sky$ precisely the sort of remnant evidence predicted by *ig *ang theorists. 0hat%s more$ the precise matching of the radiation with a Rblack bodyR spectrum at all frequencies is difficult to reconcile with anything other than a creation event involving the entire universe. For more information visit the <osmic *ackground E8plorer +<D*E/ web site1 http1((lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov(product(cobe(

1;6<": A"tronomer" *i"co!er T.at +ala,ie" are *i"tri'$te% More *en"ely an% are Le"" Well Forme% a" T.ey Loo2
Fart.er o$t into S(ace. ,ue to the ability of the >ubble and other advanced telescopes to look further into space than ever before +and thus look further back in time/$ astronomers have discovered that gala8ies are more dense$ and quasars are more abundant$ the farther they peer into space. The more distant elliptical gala8ies are apparently only about one#third to one# half the siPe of nearby gala8ies. They also appear in pairs about one#third of the time$ in contrast to nearby gala8ies which appear in pairs Nust I percent of the time. <learly astronomical evidence supports the notion that the universe has changed with time$ and argues against an eternal or Rsteady stateR cosmos.

1;;2: Na"a=" CO/E "atellite team %i"co!ere% t.e (re%icte% >ri((le"> in t.e co"mic 'ac2gro$n% ra%iation. The *ig
*ang theory had predicted that the background radiation should be very slightly RrippledR +showing fluctuations of at least one part in 1@@$@@@/ if it is to account for the slight inhomogeneity that had to be present at the beginning of the universe. .ationale1 given that gala8ies today are organiPed in clusters rather than evenly distributed throughout the universe$ this same sort of unevenness had to be present at the beginning as well. Qiew the left over background radiation images from the <D*E satellite at1 http1((aether.lbl.gov(www(proNects(cobe(<D*ES>ome(,K.S5mages.html Dn April 26$ 1GG2$ astrophysicist Aeorge 4moot announced that the <D*E satellite had measured the e8pected RripplesR in the microwave background radiation. Fluctuations measured were about 1 part in G@$@@@= or to be precise$ 11 T(# ! parts per million. They were clearly distinguishable from noise$ and newspapers all over the world carried 4moot%s quote1 R f you!re religious, it!s like looking at "od#$

So0 W.at *oe" T.i" ?a!e To *o Wit. t.e /i'le@

Among all t.e ancient (eo(le" o# t.e 1orl%0 only t.e ?e're1" 1rote o# a +o% outside of space and time0 a tran"cen%ent all(o1er#$l creator +o%. Dther peoples believed in a magical$ eternal universe that gave birth to gods. Kany confused the universe and the gods$ attributing to the universe and nature god#lie characteristics +this sort of philosophy continues even today with new age thought and eastern mysticism/. 5n contrast$ the >ebrews wrote of an eternal$ transcendent creator outside of space and time who gave the universe its beginning. This is precisely the world view science now confirms to us.

T.e /i'le recor%" in +en 1:1 >In t.e 'eginning +o% create% t.e .ea!en" an% t.e eart.> o$t o# not.ing. -ote1 the
>ebrew language has several words for RcreateR. Dne form means to Rmake something out of something already in e8istenceR= while another means to Rmake something out of nothingR. The word used in Aenesis 111 in the original >ebrew te8t is RbaraR$ which means to create out of nothing# Frecisely what science is telling us ## that during the *ig *ang$ the entire universe came into being out of nothing.

T.e /i'le al"o recor%" in n$mero$" (lace" t.at t.e Creator i" eternal - o$t"i%e o# "(ace an% time: 5sa1 LI11L $the high
and lofty one who inhabits eternity$# Aod also refers to >is timeless self#e8istence when >e replies to Koses as to >is identity1 E8 !116 $%ell them &' %H&% &' has sent you$# <onsistent with science$ the *ible teaches that the <reator Aod operates outside of space and time$ and e8isted before the universe >e created.

Li2e t.e /i'le0 t.e con"en"$" o# mo%ern "cience i" t.at t.e $ni!er"e - an% time it"el# - .a% a 'eginning. And like every
cause the <ause of the universe must be independent of its effect$ Thus$ according to scientific principles$ the First <ause must be separate from the universe$ not a part of it. The *ible also records that Aod is a 4pirit and non#physical being$ and that the heavens cannot contain >im.

E!i%ence o# C.ance0 or Intelligent *e"ign@

Clearly 1e "ee t.at mo%ern "cienti#ic e!i%ence (oint" to t.e #act t.at t.e $ni!er"e %i% not al1ay" e,i"t0 '$t m$"t .a!e .a% a 'eginning. The evidence also shows that a high degree of intelligent design and fine#tuning # not only with respect to the earth$ the solar system$ and our gala8y$ but in the construction and maintenance of the universe itself. >owever$ some still insist that the design

and fine#tuning we see in is a product of nature itself ## and that such design does not necessarily require a ,esigner. 5s this a reasonable position& "ets consider what some world renowned scientists have to say about chance vs. the delicate fine-tuning that the see in the world and universe around us1

T.e #ine-t$ning o# t.e rate o# $ni!er"al e,(an"ion. 4teven >awking wrote1 $ f the rate of e(pansion one second after the
big bang had been smaller by e)en one part in a hundred thousand million million, the uni)erse would ha)e re*collapsed before it e)er reached its present state#$ 4lightly faster than the critical rate$ and matter would have dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and gala8ies to form. According to astrophysicist Aeorge 4moot the creation event was Rfinely orchestratedR.

T.e critical ratio o# t.e ma""e" o# t.e (roton to t.e electron i" #inely a%A$"te%. 4ays >awking1 RThe remarkable fact is
that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adNusted to make possible the development of life.R

T.e .ig.ly or%ere% initial "tate o# t.e $ni!er"e co$l% not .a!e come 'y c.ance. According to the calculation of 4teve
>awking%s associate$ .oger Fenrose$ the highly ordered +low entropy/ initial state of the universe is not something that could have occurred by even the wildest chance.

T.e 'alance an% #ine-t$ning o# t.e #o$r #$n%amental #orce" in nat$re. Fhysicists speak of the the four fundamental
forces in nature1 gravity$ electromagnetism$ and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Fhysicist .ichard Korris writes1 $+)ery one of these forces must ha)e ,ust the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life#$

W.at are t.e c.ance" t.at all t.e #$nctional (rotein" nece""ary #or li#e mig.t #orm in one (lace@ >oyle and
0ickramasinghe calculated the odds at 1 in 1@ 6@$@@@$ a number far removed from the realm of finite possibilities.

9rinceton (.y"ici"t Freeman *y"on 1rite"0 "%he more e(amine the uni)erse and the details of its architecture, the more
e)idence find that the uni)erse in some sense must ha)e known we were coming#$ -A4A astronomer ?ohn D%Ueefe says$ $ t is my )iew that these circumstances indicate that the uni)erse was created for man to li)e in#$ )< %i##erent con"tant" t.at ma2e li#e on Eart. (o""i'le

Accor%ing to "cienti"t"0 it i" im(o""i'le t.at t.e #ine-t$ning an% %elicate 'alance 1e "ee aro$n% $" co$l% 'e t.e (ro%$ct o# nat$re it"el#0 or o# c.ance. 0hen you consider the many$ purposeful choices that were made to bring this universe into e8istence$ you begin to realiPe that intelligent %e"ign is the only rational conclusion one can come to based on the latest scientific evidence. Think about it. All eternity has been anticipating these few moments you and 5 are now e8periencing. 5ndeed our lives are an incredibly rare gift'

T.e /i'le Enco$rage" " To Loo2 #or E!i%ence o# *e"ign

T.e /i'le - in 'ot. t.e Ol% an% Ne1 Te"tament" - %eclare" t.at 1e ".o$l% e,(ect to "ee e!i%ence o# +o%=" intelligent %e"ign all t.ro$g.o$t nat$re. 4ome passages to consider1

9"alm 1;: 1-) "%o the chief 'usician, & -salm of Da)id# The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows
his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge# %here is no speech nor language, where their )oice is not heard# %heir line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world#$ +U?Q/ -ote that ,avid declares that the firmament +the stars/ ".o$t" to $" about Aod%s glory and creative handiwork. 0e have no need for people to tell us about the <reator # the creation itself speaks to us +utters speech/ continually +night unto night/ about the Aod%s creation$ revealing knowledge about >im. And there is no where on the earth where this Rcreative wordR of Aod has not reached.

Roman" 1:2< $.or the in)isible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, e)en his eternal power and "odhead/ so that they are without e(cuse#$ 5n the -ew Testament$ Faul in .omans makes the point that evidence of >is Reternal power and AodheadR are Rclearly seenR$ so that man is Rwithout e8cuseR1 one cannot e8ist in Aod%s magnificent creation and reasonably deny the e8istence of the <reator. There simply is no e8cuse.

/a"e% on t.e E!i%ence #or Intelligent *e"ign0 W.at Can We Concl$%e@

+i!en t.at t.ere i" a tremen%o$" amo$nt o# e!i%ence #or intelligent %e"ign in t.e $ni!er"e0 1e can rea"ona'ly concl$%e ... T.at an all-(o1er#$l0 all-2no1ing0 *e"igner i" re"(on"i'le - certainly -DT chance$ and certainly not the universe itself. T.at ?e ma%e t.e ni!er"e0 an% all t.at i" 1it.in it0 for the purpose of creating and sustaining this Newel of a planet we call Earth # and us$ the ape8 of >is creation. T.at ?e contin$e" to "$"tain ?i" creation in accordance with the laws of physics >e has established. T.at ?e i" acti!ely engage% 1it. ?i" creation0 and that >e has a plan and purpose for it

W.y Wo$l% a Creator Let " +et Into S$c. a Me""@

Bo$ mig.t "ay =1ell0 i# ?e ma%e all t.i"0 1.y i" t.e 1orl% in "$c. a me""C= W.y i" t.ere e!il in t.e 1orl%@ T.e mo"t im(ortant im(lication o# an intelligently %e"igne% an% t$ne% $ni!er"e is that a perfect ,esigner would ,D something about the problem of evil in our world. So 1.at mig.t a "$(er-intelligent0 caring Creator %o@ <ertainly >e would not make creatures that have no free wills of their own$ so they would be without the ability to bring evil into >is universe. 4uch creatures would be no more than robots. 0ithout free will and choice love is impossible$ and clearly the <reator Aod desired to have a relationship with a people that could return >is love. "ove requires the possibility of reNection. T.e /i'le %eclare" t.at +o% i" A$"t an% m$"t ($ni". e!il %oer"0 '$t t.at ?e i" al"o lo!e. ?e cannot tolerate "in0 A$"t t$rn ?i" 'ac2 on it. Bet ?e lo!e" ?i" creation. W.at mig.t 'e +o%=" o(tion"0 after >is race of free#willed creatures broke the harmony of >is universe& >e could ... 13 E,terminate t.em # but that would not be a viable option$ since that would be consistent with >is loving nature$ and >is merciful nature. 23 O!erloo2 t.eir %i"o'e%ience # but again$ that would be not be an option$ since it would be action that would be incompatible with >is requirement for Nustice. &3 Lea!e t.em alone to let them try and straighten out their own mess # but that would not be compatible with a compassionate and loving Aod either. None o# t.e"e o(tion" ".o1 t.e #oret.o$g.t o# a (er#ect0 "$(er-intelligent0 caring Creator. The *ible$ the same book that gives us a true picture of Aod since ancient times$ also gives us t.e one "ol$tion t.at ".o1 great care an% #oret.o$g.t +though we might never have thought of it ourselves/. W.at %i% ?e %o@ ?e 'ecame one o# $" an% too2 t.e (enalty #or %i"o'e%ience on o$r 'e.al#. e died in our place. *y doing so >e showed both perfect Nustice and unbounded mercy. *y doing so$ >e gave those who wanted to be reconciled to >im the chance to be forever changed$ to be eventually made into fit company for >im throughout eternity. This was >is plan "before time began" +1 <orinthians 21I/.

+o% /ecoming Man@ I"n=t t.i" a 9rimiti!e Conce(t@

I# t.e Creator o# t.e $ni!er"e 1ante% to comm$nicate to $" +moderns and ancients/ what >e is like$ how could >e show us more clearly than by 'ecoming one o# $"@ 5f >e wanted to communicate to us the seriousness of breaking >is moral law$ how could >e show us more forcefully than by demanding that the most valuable thing in the universe be forfeited as a penalty& And if >e wanted to tell us how much >e loves us$ how could >e do it more dramatically than by dying for us& Do.n &:15: "!or God so loved the world that perish, but have everlasting life". e gave is only begotten "on, that who so ever would believe in im should not

*o yo$ .a!e a (er"onal relation".i( 1it. t.e Creator@ 5f you do$ then you have everything to look forward to # in this life$ and in the life to come. Oou were made for a purpose$ and receiving the "ord into your heart and walking daily with >im will help you come to realiPe >is purpose in your life and fulfill it. 5f you don%t have a relationship with your <reator$ you can' ,on%t put it off' >ere is a link to *illy Araham%s web site that can show you how...

Question: "What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?"

An"1er: Kodern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design from various disciplines$ from biology to astronomy$ from physics to cosmology. The purpose of this article is to summariPe some of the maNor arguments. W.at i" t.e 'e"t e!i%enceEarg$ment #or intelligent %e"ign@ 8 From /iology 5n recent years$ 0illiam ,embski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the :e8planatory filter$; a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes(no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. *ased upon this filter$ if an event$ system or obNect is the product of intelligence$ then it will 1. *e contingent 2. *e comple8 !. ,isplay an independently specified pattern Thus$ in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design$ it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature$ nor can it be the result of chance. According to ,embski$ the e8planatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems$ namely$

specified comple8ity. 5n other words$ comple8ity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent= it must also conform to an independently specified pattern. Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out$ biological information comprises a comple8$ non#repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. 4uch similarity e8plains$ in part$ ,awkinsB observation that$ :%he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer*like#; 0hat are we to make of this similarity between informational software9the undisputed product of conscious intelligence9and the informational sequences found in ,-A and other important biomolecules& W.at i" t.e 'e"t e!i%enceEarg$ment #or intelligent %e"ign@ 8 From 9.y"ic" 5n physics$ the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a :raPorBs edge; for permitting the emergence of comple8 life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that$ indeed$ there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. *ritish astrophysicist Fred >oyle writes$ :A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics$ as well as with chemistry and biology$ and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.; Dne e8ample of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe e8pands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1@LL. 5f the universe e8panded too quickly$ matter would e8pand too quickly for the formation of stars$ planets and gala8ies. 5f the universe e8panded too slowly$ the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars. *esides that$ the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1@6@. 5f this value were to be increased slightly$ all stars would be at least 6@V more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support comple8 life. 5f this value were to be decreased slightly$ all stars would be at least 2@V less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life. W.at i" t.e 'e"t e!i%enceEarg$ment #or intelligent %e"ign@ 8 From Co"mology 0ith modern discoveries in the field of cosmology$ the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Ualam argument states that 1. Everything which begins to e8ist has a cause apart from itself. 2. The universe began to e8ist. !. Therefore$ the universe has a cause apart from itself. 5t thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause e8ists outside the four dimensions of space and time$ which possesses eternal$ personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space$ matter9and indeed even time itself9into being. W.at i" t.e 'e"t e!i%enceEarg$ment #or intelligent %e"ign@ 8 Concl$"ion This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines$ including biology$ physics and cosmology. Recommen%e% Re"o$rce": "ogos *ible 4oftware and 5ntelligent ,esign 1@11 "eading E8perts E8plain the Uey 5ssues Edited by >. 0ayne >ouse. .ead more1 http1((www.gotquestions.org(evidence#intelligent#design.htmlWi8PP2K*s4@TT>

Question: "How does DNA point to the e istence of a !reator?"

An"1er: Dver the millennia$ believers in Aod have marshaled numerous arguments in an attempt to demonstrate AodBs e8istence. Qarious forms of the cosmological$ ontological$ and moral arguments have been developed and refined with much success. Dne frequently discussed form of theistic argument has been the argument from design. The design argument has had many notable proponents from Flato to Thomas Aquinas and beyond. 0hile several versions of the design argument are valid and have been persuasive to many$ recent discoveries at the cellular level have provided further ammunition for design proponents. 5n 1GL!$ researchers Francis <rick and ?ames 0atson elucidated the structure of the ,-A molecule. 5n doing so$ they discovered that ,-A was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four character digital code. This information is contained in an arraignment of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A$ <$ T$ and A. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble comple8 protein molecules that$ in turn$ help form structures diverse as eyes$ wings$ and legs. As ,r. 4tephen <. Keyer has noted$ :As it turns out$ specific regions of the ,-A molecule called coding regions have the same property of :sequence specificity; or Rspecified comple8ity; that characteriPes written codes$ linguistic te8ts$ and protein molecules. ?ust as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement$ so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases +the ABs$ TBs$ ABs$ and <Bs/ inscribed along the spine of a ,-A molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.; The information#bearing properties in the ,-A molecule seem obvious. >owever$ does this fact$ by itself$ force us to infer an 5ntelligent ,esigner as the cause of this intelligence& Keyer continues$ :0hether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription$ a section of te8t in a book$ or computer software$ if you have information$ and you trace it back to its source$ invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore$ when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the ,-A molecule in the cell$ the most rational inference$ based upon our repeated e8perience$ is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information.; The information#rich features of ,-A provide further confirmation that our universe was created and designed by Aod. As the Apostle Faul said in his letter to the church at .ome$ :For since the creation of the world AodBs invisible qualities9his eternal power and divine nature9have been clearly seen$ being understood from what has been made$ so that people are without e8cuse; +.omans 112@/. This inspired utterance seems more obvious now than when it was originally written nearly 2$@@@ years ago. .ead more1 http1((www.gotquestions.org(,-A#<reator.htmlWi8PP2K*sr5gvd
Question: "Did "od create the universe?"

An"1er: The scriptural teaching on the origin of the universe is found in Aenesis 111$ which states that in the beginning$ Aod created the heavens and the earth. 4teven >awking attempts to circumvent this truth +or$ at the very least$ render a <reator logically superfluous to the issue of the beginning of the universe/. >owever$ his ideas are not new$ but are rather the latest versions of some classic attempts to e8plain getting something +i.e.$ the universe/ out of nothing. >awkingBs support for his work comes from the e8istence of the law of gravity. 5t is known to physicists that the energy associated with the gravitational force is negative$ while the energy associated with most ordinary obNects +baseballs$ cars$ etc./ is positive. 5t is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel$ resulting in Pero net energy. Two situations with the same energy +or Pero energy difference/ are$ in a physical sense$ equally preferable. An e8ample would be a soccer ball on the kitchen floor= the ball could sit by the refrigerator or the stove or the table without wanting to roll anywhere else. This is because each position on the kitchen floor which the soccer ball could occupy would have the same energy$ so none of the positions is energetically preferable to the others.

>awking envisions the origin of the universe in a similar way. 4ince it is possible to think of the creation of the universe as a :Pero net energy process$; >awking suggests that there is no need to e8plain how it could have been created. *ut this inference is based not on the physics$ but on >awkingBs own philosophical presuppositions. 5n the e8ample of a soccer ball on the kitchen floor$ it is conceivable to imagine the soccer ball sitting anywhere on the floor without needing an e8planation= however$ it is quite another thing to say that the soccer ball and the kitchen floor came from nothing. >awking%s attempts to address this problem are not in any way new to philosophers= it is one of the oldest issues in Epicurean philosophy1 :e8 nihilo nihil fit; +literally$ :nothing comes out of nothing;/. >awkingBs ideas may establish that two physical situations +the universe e8isting versus not e8isting/ are energetically equivalent$ but it does nothing to address the issue of cause and effect. 5 donBt need an e8planation as to why the soccer ball is sitting by the stove rather than by the refrigerator$ but 5 do need an e8planation if 5 see the ball move from the stove to the refrigerator. 5n physics$ a change never occurs without an e8planation= in philosophical language$ an effect never occurs without a cause. >awkingBs ideas do nothing to address this= the issue of the universeBs origin is the same as it was before. 5t is not possible to get something from nothing. Dnly the idea of a <reator can adequately e8plain where the universe could have come from. Koreover$ >awkingBs statement that science will always prevail over religion :because it works; reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy of science. Truth is not determined by :what works$; but by whether it conforms to the reality around us. 0hen 5 say that a particular statement is :true$; 5 am saying that the content of that statement actually describes the way things are. This connection between a statement and the reality it describes is independent of me and my mind. A statement may be true or false$ irrespective of whether or not it appears to me to describe the correct state of affairs. This is what we mean when we say that truth is obNective= a statementBs :truth value; is a quality which it possesses independently of my knowledge thereof. >owever$ once we begin to try to decide whether a particular statement is true or false +as happens in both science and religion/$ the only way we know how to proceed is to try to test the statement to :see if it works.; As an e8ample$ suppose 5 want to decide whether the statement :All cats are brown; is true. 5 can begin my investigation by gathering cats together and inspecting each of them to see if any do not conform to the statement in question$ thereby rendering it false. 5 only need to find one gray cat to know that my original statement is false1 not all cats are brown. *ut what if every cat 5 was able to find was$ in fact$ brown& <learly$ the world does contain felines of many other varieties and colors. 5n this case$ even though my statement :works; +from my investigation$ all cats do appear to be brown/$ it is clearly false. Thus$ the issue of whether science or religion :works; is completely irrelevant to the issue of truth in each of these disciplines. 0hile truth can be discovered by noting what works$ simply because a statement appears to work does not in fact imply that it is true. To summariPe$ >awking%s reasoning fails on philosophical grounds. >awking attempts to substitute Aod with a particular physical law +gravity/. >owever$ >awking fails to address the key issue at hand # that is$ the origin of physical law in the first place. 0here did the law of gravity come from and how does nothing produce something& A physical law is not nothing. Koreover$ >awking%s conception of a plethora of ensemble universes to escape the conclusion of fine#tuning is philosophically unsound$ metaphysically motivated$ and less parsimonious than the theistic interpretation. 0hy does man seek to eliminate Aod from having had any role in the creation of the Jniverse& 5t%s very simple. Kan hates Aod and does not want to be subNect to Aod%s law$ or held accountable for his actions. As Faul writes in .omans 1$ RFor although they knew Aod$ they neither glorified him as Aod nor gave thanks to him$ but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise$ they became fools and e8changed the glory of the immortal Aod for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.R Recommen%e% Re"o$rce": "ogos *ible 4oftware and The <ase for a <reator by "ee 4trobel. .ead more1 http1((www.gotquestions.org(did#Aod#create#universe.htmlWi8PP2K*t4-6XQ

F$e"tion: >W.at i" t.e +o% (article@>

An"1er: The RAod particleR is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the >iggs boson. 5n laymanBs terms$ different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. Dne of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. 4ome particles$ like protons and neutrons$ have mass. Dthers$ like photons$ do not. The >iggs boson$ or :Aod particle$; is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. The :Aod particle; nickname grew out of the long$ drawn#out struggles of physicists to find this elusive piece of the cosmic puPPle. 0hat follows is a very brief$ very simplified e8planation of how the >iggs boson fits into modern physics$ and how science is attempting to study it. The :standard model; of particle physics is a system that attempts to describe the forces$ components$ and reactions of the basic particles that make up matter. 5t not only deals with atoms and their components$ but the pieces that compose some subatomic particles. This model does have some maNor gaps$ including gravity$ and some e8perimental contradictions. The standard model is still a very good method of understanding particle physics$ and it continues to improve. The model predicts that there are certain elementary particles even smaller than protons and neutrons. As of the date of this writing$ the only particle predicted by the model which has not been e8perimentally verified is the :>iggs boson$; Nokingly referred to as the :Aod particle.; Each of the subatomic particles contributes to the forces that cause all matter interactions. Dne of the most important$ but least understood$ aspects of matter is mass. 4cience is not entirely sure why some particles seem mass#less$ like photons$ and others are :massive.; The standard model predicts that there is an elementary particle$ the >iggs boson$ which would produce the effect of mass. <onfirmation of the >iggs boson would be a maNor milestone in our understanding of physics. The :Aod particle; nickname actually arose when the book %he "od -article0 f the 1ni)erse s the &nswer, What s the 2uestion3 by "eon "ederman was published. 4ince then$ itBs taken on a life of its own$ in part because of the monumental questions about matter that the Aod particle might be able to answer. The man who first proposed the >iggs bosonBs e8istence$ Feter >iggs$ isnBt all that amused by the nickname :Aod particle$; as heBs an avowed atheist. All the same$ there isnBt really any religious intention behind the nickname. <urrently$ efforts are under way to confirm the >iggs boson using the "arge >adron <ollider$ a particle accelerator in 4witPerland$ which should be able to confirm or refute the e8istence of the Aod particle. As with any scientific discovery$ AodBs amaPing creation becomes more and more impressive as we learn more about it. Either result9that the >iggs boson e8ists$ or does not e8ist9represents a step forward in human knowledge and another step forward in our appreciation of AodBs awe#inspiring universe. 0hether or not there is a :Aod particle$; we know this about <hrist1 :For by him all things were created1 things in heaven and on earth$ visible and invisible . . . all things were created by him and for him; +<olossians 111E/. .ead more1 http1((www.gotquestions.org(Aod#particle.htmlWi8PP2K*uFXu1a