What do scientists say who do not believe in the God of the Bible?


Many scientists commit themselves to materialism and assume science cannot be capable of proving creation.  If results don't fit their expectations of millions of years they blame the method and tamper with it until they get a result as they want it. But are they right with what they claim? The following quotes are meant to give an insight into what (atheistical) scientists actually found out, how unlikely it is that the universe came into being by itself and why some of these scientists changed their opinion about the existence of God.


The theoretical physicist Paul Davies says: „It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” - Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, [Penguin, 1983], p. 9


„If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million the universe would have been recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.“ - Professor Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, [Bantam Books, 1995], p. 134


Professor Paul Davies, of the Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, says the likelihood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a target one inch wide on the other side of the universe and hitting it.- cited by John Polkinghorne, One World, [SPCK, 1986], p. 58


Cambridge physicist Brandon Carter confirms that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10 to the power of 40 (1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000) „stars like the sun would not exist, nor, one might argue, would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance“- quoted in Paul Davies, God and New Physics, [Penguin, 1984], p. 188


A variation as tiny as one particle in 10 billion would have been enough to prevent our universe coming into existence, according to Dr. George Smoot, head of the NASA COBE satellite team. He says that his discovery of ripples of radiation from the universe’s beginning was „like looking at God“.


If the oxygen resonance level were only half a per cent higher, carbon could never have formed, and neither could life. When astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who did the pioneering work on carbon’s formation, found out how unlikely the existence of carbon is, he confessed: „Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery“ - cited by David Wilkinson, God, The Big Bang and Stephen Hawking [Monarch, 1993], p. 108


Rober Gastrow, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says that the universe had a beginning, and that the scientific evidence now points towards creation by God: „This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians… The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable… For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reasons, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


It is worth bearing in mind that one tiny human cell contains more information than about 30 different average-sized science textbooks.


"Aliens brought life onto earth" is a theory called panspermia. Michael Denton comments: „Nothing illustrates more clearly how intractable of a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with even the idea of panspermia.“ - Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 271


Professor Walter L. Bradley, of Texas A&M University, whose book The Mystery of Life’s Origin established him as a leading authority in his field, says of such attempts to prove a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life: „Despite all their efforts, they haven’t even come up with a single possibility that even remotely makes sense. And there’s no prospect they will. In fact, everything is pointing the other way – in the unmistakable direction of God. Today it takes a great deal of faith to be an honest scientist who is an atheist.“ - interviewed in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17. (p. 5 of The Revised Quote Book)


The Second Law of Thermodynamics has proven a formidable barrier to atheists trying to escape the fact that the Big Bang theory looks like creation by God. For example, Carl Sagan suggested that although the universe is currently expanding, it will eventually shrink into a tiny speck only to then bounce back into existence. In this way, Sagan said, the universe is eternal after all, oscillating between expansion and collapse. However, the Big Bounce theory falls down on the fact that even a bounced universe would have run out of energy long before now according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Professor Beatrice Tinsley, of Yale University, says, „There is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to new expansion“ - cited by William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith [Crossway Books, 1994], p. 103


Dr Michael Denton, Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand, says: „We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and the non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive. - Evolution – A Theory in Crisis [Adler & Adler Publishers, 1986], pp. 249-250


„More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than its solution. At present, all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." - Professor Klaus Dose, President of the Institue of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers [Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1998], p. 348, cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith [Zondervan, 2000], p. 207


Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramasinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: „I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.“ He says that his conclusion had come to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been „strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation“. He concludes: „The only logical answer to life is creation – and not accidental random shuffling“ - Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298


One of evolution’s leading advocates in the world today, Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, wrote: „The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection, many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form, and disappear, leaving no descendents. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution" - Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, The Origin of Species Updated [Anchor, 2000], p. 252

"As more bones turn up, the story becomes less clear… In spite of a century’s claims of the discovery of „missing links“, it is quite possible that no bone yet found is on the direct genetic line to ourselves. With so many kinds to choose from, so few remains of each, and such havoc among the relics, none of the fossils may have direct descendents today" - Almost Like a Whale, p. 427


Steven J. Gould, late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record „persists as the trade secret of palaeontology“. Niles Eldredge agrees, claiming a deception has been taking place: „We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change]… all the while knowing that it does not“ (both cited by Blanchard, p. 108). Gould and Eldredge’s response to the problem was to suggest that evolution developed by sudden and massive jumps from one species to the other, rather than by gradual change.


Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum’s senior palaeontologist, said: „Nine-tenth of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not a partical of evidence for the transmutation of species.“ Speaking in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, Patterson said:

„Last year I had a sudden realization that for over 20 years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long… so for the last few weeks I’ve been putting a simple question to various people… Can you tell me anything you know about evolution… any one thing that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: „I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.““ - cited by Blanchard, pp. 114-115