Why Doubt Abiogenesis & Darwinian Evolution?

Boeing 747
In a word, “math” more specifically. “probability.”  Darwinian evolution by natural selection and varying mutation following the miraculous accidental formation of the first self replicating molecule is highly improbable.  In mathematics such probabilities are labeled absurd.  For that reason, noted Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle famously said,

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.[1]

David Berlinski earned a PhD in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He offers the following:

I have been reading Berlinski and I take him seriously. Consider this:

It is this destructive dilemma that Dawkins calls the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The appeal to a Boeing 747 is meant to evoke a lighthearted quip attributed to the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. The spontaneous emergence of life on earth, Hoyle observed, is about as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 out of the debris. Although an atheist, Hoyle was skeptical about Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Dawkins passionate in its defense. Since the junkyard expresses with rare economy precisely the odds favoring the spontaneous appearance of life—they are remarkably prohibitive on virtually every calculation—it has been an irritation to Dawkins ever since it made its appearance. With their consciousness unraised, a great many people have evidently concluded that when it comes to the origins of life, the junkyard is all that Darwin offered. [2]

I would add this requirement to the 747 dilemma, “First, you need to get your own junk,” suggesting that one needs to explain the origin of the junkyard as well. “Abiogenesis isn’t evolution” is the typical atheist rejoinder… My answer, “so what?” It is necessary for naturalism. There can be no “natural selection and varying mutation” without preexisting reproducing life. If you haven’t explained that yet, then you haven’t begun to address origins. The evidence leads to some sort of creation event via intelligent design, that is, unless airplanes really can be assembled by tornadoes. It’s actually much worse. Even simple bacteria are more complex than a Boeing 747. The mathematical probability of reproducing molecules forming on the primordial earth is so described below by David A. Plaisted, a PhD Computer Scientist:

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes.  A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA “backbone'” determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small. (David Plaisted)

In a probabilistic sense, to believe this happened is absurd. It is a tiny probability and I hope anyone understand that an event with a probability of 1/10^89  (one chance out of ten with eighty-nine zeros behind it) is not at all likely to happen. It’s mathematically absurd.  Intelligent Design theory is the only option that fully makes sense of the evidence. I am not an expert but I do read both sides carefully.  I am willing to contemplate that God used a process to form human bodies (Genesis 2:7) but naturalism just seems mathematically and philosophically absurd.


  1. Fred Hoyle, “Hoyle on evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), 105
  2. David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, [2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2009),140-141

Intellectual Honesty, Evidence, & Evolutionary Theory

LanguageOne one hand, I am often accused by Christians of being an “evolutionist” because I believe that the creation is billions of years old. On the other hand, atheists accuse me of being a science denier because I doubt Darwinism.  As one with training in chemistry and physics from an accredited University. It seems like I would have to check my brain at the church door to believe in a thousands-of-years old world. (However, a scientific possibility remains plausible.) Bishop Ussher’s goal was admirable but misguided given recent Ancient Near East scholarship and archeology. The date of creation is not in the Bible, rather it’s an extrapolation more akin to date-setting the rapture than exegesis. Paul said atheists are without excuse by what has been made (Rom 1:20). However, if God made a young earth look so old just to fool the atheists, it seems as if they have a viable excuse. In light of Romans 1:20 the “appearance of age” argument I often hear from young earth creationists (YEC) disparages God’s character. I do not accept the negative implications young earth creationism imposes on a Holy God who does not lie.

YEC effectively turns Yahweh into a trickster, who is fooling scientists with deceptive data. However, that does NOT make me a “theistic evolutionist” – the proper term is “progressive creationist” or perhaps “intelligent design theorist.” Neo-Darwinism as defined by Richard Dawkins and his crew is incoherent and self defeating. Without pre-existing reproducing life, Darwinism never gets off the ground, it explains adaptation at best, not origins. It’s a faith position the way atheists hold it.

I am far more challenged by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., the director of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian — who promotes the Gospel. His book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” –presents a case for “theistic evolution” — which seems almost contradictory given the Dawkins definition (it seems incoherent as well because nothing is “theistic” about a random process).

However, the word “evolution” is notoriously imprecise and is usually used in equivocation fallacies like when micro-evolution is used as evidence for macro-evolution and basically proves nothing but adaptation and breeding to promote certain traits is even in the Bible. So small changes within a phenotype over time are NOT evidence for common ancestry.

Worse yet, is abiogenesis (life from non-life) — the darwinist will always attempt to end the discussion by announcing its an entirely different subject and quickly steer the conversation as far away as possible. I refuse to follow the red herring – my REAL issue is with NATURALISM leading to atheism / agnosticism.

Naturalists make appeals to evidence when asserting the superiority of their atheistic worldview. Without abiogenesis naturalistic evolution has NO viable chance of being true, and there’s conspicuously no evidence for abiogenesis– special pleading about a primordial mythological “RNA World” aside — there much more evidence to the contrary — the best theory naturalists seem to have is “aliens seeded life on earth” which does not even answer the origin of life question, but rather pushes it out into space, where no life has been observed, — I call it “aliens of the gaps” reasoning but in science is a real theory called Panspermia and advocated by Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins too— this is naturalism as a religious faith, not science.

I object to naturalist evolution for theological reasons but mostly from mathematical proofs showcasing the massive improbabilies involved in intelligent life evolving by random mutation and natural selection. When you realize that virtually nothing feasible has come from centuries of abiogenesis research, the neo-darwinian tale resembles Greek mythology more than science.

Yet Dawkins and his kind, call Christians “delusional” for believing in a Creator God. So I am posting this article, that might anger some of my brothers in Christ. I I am now convinced that to God my intellectual honesty is more important than being right. Yes, the discussion on evolution is very important… but as my chemistry teacher at NCSU, Kay Sandberg PhD Organic Chemistry. once advised me “Cris, do not let your opinion about origins ever get in the way of the fact that Christ died for your sins.” — That’s right a science teacher at one of the top engineering schools in the USA, gave me that wisdom.

Now I am on thin ice, very thin in Baptist circles, and some seminaries would fire me for even suggesting the possibility that this verse might be a metaphor for a process – elements like carbon forming into a carbon based body which has a soul breathed into it.

“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”(Genesis 2:7)

It creates problems with other passages but quiet a few conservative scholars do not find them unsurmountable exegetically, take a look at BioLogos.org for that material. I find Brian Godawa’s articles and movie reviews to be thought-provoking and, often, personally convicting.

Accordingly, it’s important to READ Francis Collins carefully and make an effort to understand his reasoning and the evidence behind it, BEFORE assuming he is misled by his naturalistic scientific training (which is still on the table).  But real science is EVIDENCE BASED and is usually well reasoned. For example, we are communicating over the internet which assumes truths derived from the wackiest (but most reliable) theories in the world of science, called quantum mechanics and thermodynamics — both can seem so awesomely contradictory that many successful scientists have committed suicide over the nature of reality, according to real observational science.

Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously.”

David L. Goodstein, States of Matter, (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002) pg. 1

When it comes to the implications presented by thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, naturalists seem to prefer death to science.

Read Quantum Enigma : Physics Encounters Consciousness if you really want to rock your understanding of the world we really do live in. There is strong evidence subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time. Even worse, a light photon can behave like a particle or a wave, depending on if a person observes it… how could human consciousness affect the nature of physical reality in a naturalistic universe?  Quantum mechanics is considered the most proven theory in all of science – all computer technology is absolutely dependent on it being true – yet it presents enigmas that are downright illogical — hence the suicides by brilliant mathematicians and physicists when they faced its implications.

I am convicted that, although I will always be a creationist of some stripe, a simple hand-wave type dismissal when it comes to the theory of evolution, common ancestry is laziness on my part. It makes one seem ignorant and it actually misrepresents God, just as much as the atheist. Why? Do you really understand the science? I cannot say I am even a marginal biologist. Francis Collins is a Christian but was competent enough to be hired to direct the human genome project. Collins has the Holy Spirit and a PhD in science, he says the evidence is compelling from the genome that God used an evolutionary process to form our physical bodies. Collins deserves a fair hearing from Christians but most will label him a heretic or liberal. I am ashamed to say I purchased his book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief over a year ago but haven’t made the time to read it, (I have a easy excuse because I read most of the day for my work as an apologist, writer, and researcher). I also work with many scientists at Cocoon Resources a group of Christians investing in transformational energy, medical, pharmaceutical, and biotech inventions–through a Christian worldview ethic. I value intellectual honesty, if I am wrong about evolution I would like to know, even if it makes me feel a bit foolish about my former opinions). God reveals himself two ways: Natural Revelation (Romans 1:20) and special revelation (2 Timothy 3:16). They both need to be interpreted by experts to be properly understood. If they disagree, someone’s interpretation is incorrect, either the biblical exegesis is in error, as Galileo learned the hard way, or rather the interpretation of natural revelation (science) is faulty.

I am not “coming out” as an evolutionist but rather admitting a level of prideful incompetence.  I have been quite vocal against Darwinism – I still believe naturalism is incoherent — but I have a feeling Collin’s perspective might lead me to an ethical conviction, mainly because I am hardly qualified to speak with authority concerning the evidence from genetics. Collins seems to believe it is decisive that something like evolution was involved in creating our physical bodies.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God

By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN
Adjust font size:
Decrease font
Enlarge font

Editor’s note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) — I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God’s language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God’s plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked “What do you believe, doctor?”, I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”


“God of the Gaps” Excuse is Circular Reasoning

Skeptics and atheists routinely invoke the “God of the gaps” excuse when faced with arguments for the existence of God. For example the cosmological argument for the existence of God. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) The universe began to exist;  3) Therefore, the universe has a cause;

I like to add because that initial cause started nature it must transcend nature hence it is supernatural.

The skeptic replies along these lines, “That is a God of the gaps argument, simply because we don’t have a natural explanation yet, doesn’t mean we will never discover one, you are inserting God into the gaps of scientific knowledge.”

Jesuit astronomer Guy Consolmagno serves as a  prime example of such a consolmagnoskeptic with his comment,

Consolmagno: Well, when Hawking says we don’t need God to start the universe, he’s right. Anyone who’s trying to use God to explain the things that science can’t explain in the 21st century, is a fool because who knows what science is going to explain in the 23rd century? That’s called the God of the gaps.  (source)

However, I think this is circular reasoning because it assumes that there is a natural explanation forthcoming i.e. promissory naturalism (we do not have a natural explanation yet but one day we will). However, asserting that it is a “God of the gaps” argument, is to assume there is an undiscovered naturalistic cause but, in fact, that is the very thing in question. Invoking the “God of the gaps” label is circular reasoning, it assumes naturalism a priori.

A Conversation with a Theistic Evolutionist About ID

An excellent resource on ID

This is a recent online exchange I had with a Christian who is a theistic evolutionist. I want to say up front that I do not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the existence and variety of life we observe for scientific and theological reasons. I do not doubt that it has explanatory power on the micro scale as in how organisms adapt and change over time but it is not convincing at all for the variety of species we observe. That being said, in this discussion I did not dispute evolution (I just granted it for the sake of argument) but I responded to the theistic evolutionist’s denial of intelligent design. There is really no coherent reason I can see for a confessing Christian to fight against ID as a theory.

Many of the top scientists in the intelligent design community like Dr. Michael Behe do believe in common ancestry and evolution but they deny that randomness explains the process:

By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.[1]

In fact, Darwinian orthodoxy holds that natural selection and random mutations explain the existence of all life forms. This seems completely at odds with biblical theism. An intelligent design position seems to me to be a bare minimum even if one does hold to theistic evolution.  According to William Dembski a pioneer of ID:

 Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. … What makes intelligent design so controversial is that it purports to find signs of intelligence in biological systems. According to Francisco Ayala, Charles Darwin’s greatest achievement was to show how the organized complexity of organisms could be attained without a designing intelligence. Intelligent design therefore directly challenges Darwinism and other naturalistic approaches to the origin and evolution of life. … As a theory of biological origins and development, intelligent design’s central claim is that only intelligent causes adequately explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. [2]

Notice that the principle point is one of intelligent causation as opposed to a random one. This is my bone of contention with the theistic evolutionist. Anyhow, here is the conversation taken verbatim from an apologetics discussion board. TE is the theistic evolutionist ( I preserved his privacy). CDP is me (STR fans, observe how I used my Tactics).


TE: I am not saying ID is not science because it is religion. I am saying it’s not science because it’s false, in light of the evidence. Since the motivation behind ID is obviously religious, it ought to be taught in the forum, rather than conveying the false message that it is as legitimate as evolution

CDP: Forgive me but I am confused, you do not believe God designed life? So you are an atheist?

TE: I shall leave it to anyone posting to point out where I even implied that I was an atheist.

CDP: Sorry,  I am just trying to get some clarity, are you a deist then?

‎TE: I shall leave it to anyone posting to point out where I even implied that I was a deist. Cris, evolution does not disprove God. It does not force one to be a deist. There are plenty of theistic evolutionists, many of whom are Christians.

CDP: But even theistic evolutionists believe that God designed life. If you deny God designed it then that is deistic evolution by definition.

TE: When did I ever say that God did not design life? When did I ever say that God did not create life?

CDP: Oh so then ID is not false then?

TE: If by ID you mean God CREATED life, then no. If by ID you mean natural selection and random mutation are not sufficient explanations for how complex structures arise once life already exists, then it is false. Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. It is an explanation about what happens once life already exists

CDP: Theistic evolution usually holds that God designed and front loaded that design into life to realize his design.

TE: For example, it’s perfectly consistent to deny abiogenesis and be a proponent of evolution by natural selection and random mutation. I think it is much harder to support abiogenesis.

CDP: I’m talking about design not the origin of life. It seems to me that if you believe that natural selection and random mutation explain all species, complex structures and that God did not plan any of it then you are a deist by definition.

TE: That’s not true. Especially since it’s perfectly possible for God to have created life KNOWING the outcome, as any omniscient being would. Moreover, I believe God used evolution as the mechanism by which certain species arose. Remember, if God exists, natural selection would be the ultimate miracle, right next to the creation event, especially if NS and the Big Bang were God’s mechanisms.And I’d be careful about arguing for an inconsistency between evolution and Christ. A lot of people would lose their faith before they would give up their belief in scientific fact.

CDP: If he knows the outcome that is design and things evolved by design and not by randomness. Inconsistency seems to be your problem; if God planned the outcome then randomness is not in the equation and intelligence is. You want to have it both ways.


I cannot understand how any theist can be against intelligent design. Intelligent design does not deny the evolutionary process but it objects stridently to the mechanism of randomness. Theistic evolutionists who pander to the naturalist worldview by using arguments like the above are holding contradictory views. Either God intended a certain outcome or it was the result of randomness. Both cannot be true. The only possible escape from the cognitive dissonance would be to embrace a radical form of open theism or process theology in which God is just figuring things out as he goes. But even open theists would argue the creation of man must have been intentional (i.e. by design). Appealing to randomness to explain how complex structures arose seems to me to be deism at best.

[1]Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search For the Limits of Darwinism (NY: Free Press, 2008), 2.

[2]William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 34

“Evolve This!” Hollywood’s Anti-Christian Agenda in the Film Paul

I took my wife on a date to see the sci-fi adventure comedy Paul which has received critical acclaim and earned a respectable 7.4 rating at IMBD. It’s basically a buddy movie about two British comic book geeks who stumble across a real live alien on the lamb from the feds. What you don’t see in many of the reviews is that it is an unambiguous yet subtly subversive piece of anti-Christian propaganda. The bias and ridicule are ubiquitous and aggressive.  If this sort of parody had been aimed at Muslims, the critics would have denounced it as spiteful hate mongering. Of course, in Hollywood mongering is a mandate and hate is a virtue as long as it is aimed toward Christianity.

As the two bungling protagonists assist their little alien buddy Paul in escaping from the men in black they come across two Christians, a father and daughter, Moses and Ruth Buggs . The deleterious caricature is transparent as they are portrayed as ignorant hicks isolated in a cultic subculture correlated to the suppression of everything fun. Kristen Wig’s character, Ruth, wearing a one lensed pair of glasses to hide her defective eye, enters the scene wearing a T-Shirt picturing Jesus shooting Charles Darwin in the head, which reads, “EVOLVE THIS.” This offensive shirt is now being marketed by the producers.[1]

She is asked, “Why would Jesus want to shoot Charles Darwin?” She answers curtly, “Because of his blasphemous theories! …Are you men of God?”  The response, “We’re men of science… ya know, we believe in the establishment of a biological order through the maelstrom of physical and chemical chaos.” Ruth promptly retorts, “The world is only 4,000 years old and can only be the product of intelligent design.” This is the nature of the parody. It’s inane and obvious enough.

Of course, the Dawkobots are rolling in isles over this sort of lampoon but the typical agnostic probably only finds it mildly amusing. Yet, it’s loaded with disingenuousness that likely slips by the average non-Christian. The most heinous aspect is that no real disciple would ever wear a shirt portraying Jesus shooting Darwin or anyone at all for that matter. In case this escapes you, Jesus is the one who taught “Love your enemies” (Mat 5:44). Not to mention, as the omnipotent author of life he would hardly need a weapon.  When Peter tried to protect him from the cross he admonished, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52).

In contrast, one would have to say the characterization of order from chaos was generously accurate given scientific materialism.  However, the 4,000 years is completely disingenuous as not even the most hard core young earth creationists would argue such a view. The next point is more subtle and indeed the most subversive because intelligent design is attached. While intelligent design denies that “biological order comes from the maelstrom of physical and chemical chaos”, it does not entail a denial of evolution nor a belief in a young earth. The actual proponents of ID define it as such:

Within biology intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.[2]

Yet the average movie viewer has just been conditioned to associate ID with an exaggerated parody of young earth creationism. Of course the typical moviegoer is enjoying the comedy and is not likely engaging this material critically enough to see they are being manipulated.  That is how good propaganda works.

But that is not really the worst aspect of Paul’s anti-Christian agenda.  When Ruth first sees Paul she screams “Demon.” While many Christians do believe the UFO phenomenon to be demonic, secular scientists like Jacques Valle[3] and Pierre Guerin[4] see the possibility as well.  When faced with the reality of alien life Ruth gladly surrenders her Christian faith and is eager to get about the business of freedom. She has been set free to enjoy what life is really about, swearing and fornicating. As if this is what true freedom is all about. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth (Jn 8:34).

The mere existence of extraterrestrial life is represented as a complete defeater for Christianity. This is a commonly held misconception that should be addressed. It’s false. Theologians are not at all threatened by the possibility that God has not told us everything. Ted Peters writes,

Now, in my judgment, such alleged conventional wisdom regarding the predicted demise of religion is misleading and unfounded. It is misleading because it commits the fallacy of false alternatives: either believe in the ancient God of Israel or believe the speculative facts about ETIL (extraterrestrial intelligent life). This is a false set of alternatives, because theologians both Christian and Jewish could easily absorb new knowledge regarding extraterrestrial life.[5]

In fact, during his talk at the God Man and ET conference Dr. Michael Heiser presented a case that historically theologians were even branded heretics for not believing that an omnipotent God probably had created other worlds.[6] Thoughtful Christians are so rarely portrayed in Hollywood, if the movie producers ever actually acknowledged one they might lose their faith in hedonism.

Still yet, the anti-Christian polemic gets even worse…

And more subversive… Paul has healing powers. First he heals fundamentalist Ruth’s bad eye winning her to atheism.  In one scene he resurrects a dead bird and then promptly eats it quipping, “I’m not going to eat a dead bird am I?” Yes Paul can resurrect the dead. Of course, these powers are attributed to the magical properties of evolution. But as the movie progresses we learn that in healing Paul takes on the wounds of the subject. Paul reveals that it is too dangerous to bring a human back to life. That is, until near the end of the film when Simon Pegg’s character is blasted by Ruth’s violent shotgun toting Father named Moses. Paul himself almost dies in absorbing the deadly wound and saves the day. Sound familiar?

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. (Is 53:5)

Curious that I characterized this film as anti-Christian propaganda. In the Greek, the term rendered “antichrist” ἀντίχριστος not only refers to one who opposes Christ but also to one who usurps his position.[7]

[1] “Paul Evolve This Mens T Shirt,” http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Evolve-This-Mens-T-shirt/dp/B004Q72TDY (accessed May 4, 2011).

[2]William A. Dembski and Henry F. Schaefer III, Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 16.

[3] “The ‘medical examination’ to which abductees are said to be subjected, often accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscient of the medieval tales of encounters with demons.” Jacques Vallee, Confrontations, p. 13.

[4] “UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it… the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical.” Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14.

[5] Ted Peters, “The Astrobiological Delusion Regarding the Future of Religion” Counterbalence, http://www.counterbalance.org/astrotheo/astro-frame.html (accessed May 3, 2011).

[6]“God Man and ET,” http://www.michaelsheiser.com/UWConferencePage.htm (accessed May 3, 2011).

[7]James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLG 532.