There Is A God

Introduction
Is it possible to prove there is a God? I will give an objective, definitive answer to this question, (and the
implied question), but first, there must be some “ground work”. I hope to keep this document short and
sweet. Your time is valuable, and I do not want to loose your attention on this important subject. Please
excuse some of the necessary techno-ground-work.

Science is wonderful. It has provided us with a standard of living and a quality of life opportunity that is
almost beyond belief. If it were not for repressive governments and religions, the entire world could
benefit. Science seems to have the answer to almost everything, and the body of knowledge expands
geometrically. Is it no wonder we are prideful? What do we need with a God? We pretty much
understand everything now. What we don’t understand, well…, it will just be a matter of time…..

Does this sound familiar? It should because it is a popular and prevailing opinion, and it has a ring of
truth. The best lies have a ring of truth. I certainly believed it. Raised without religion, I became a
devout, militant atheist. Science was my God and science could eventually explain anything. I hated
religious people of any denomination or faith. To me, such people were weak, were motivated by the
fear of death, and had an inferior intellect. Given the right circumstances, I am sad to report, I might
have persecuted such people. I changed.

To further my arguments, I present some standard definitions. To quote the popular radio personality,
“words mean things”. Read and understand the following definitions and words in this document. May
God give me the right words to make my argument!

Hypothesis1 A proposition which is assumed to be true in proving another proposition.

theory2 An attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing them as

necessary consequences of other phenomena regarded as more primitive and
less in need of explanation.

(In lay terms, a framework that explains facts and predicts new ones.)

law3 A regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena.

scientific method4 The systematic collection and classification of data and, usually, the formulation
and testing of hypothesis based on the data.

The Scientific Method

Expanding on the definition of the Scientific Method, here are the generally accepted steps in formulating
a scientific conclusion.
1) Observe some aspect of the universe.
2) Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3) Use the theory to make predictions.
4) Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5) Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6) Go to step 3.

1
Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill
2
ibid
3
ibid
4
ibid

R.C. Law Page 1 of 4

 There Is A God
There is an implied seventh step or conclusion. When the cycle of steps between 3 and 6 yields no
anomalies, it may become possible to make a statement of fact regarding a narrow class of phenomena
or a statement of Law with regard to a broad class of phenomena. Because of the normally rigorous
methods in the responsible scientific community, Scientific and Physical Laws are relatively scarce. No
responsible person would claim a theory to be a Law only to be proven wrong5.

Trouble in Paradise
Unfortunately, the key word in the definition of scientific method is “usually”. It seems that the testing of
the hypothesis has fallen victim to the Second Law of Thermodynamics6. Much of the science publicized
today is “junk-science”. The conclusions are based on political agenda, or on philosophical or religious
science. Findings are often tailored to get more funding. Some of these so-called scientists are just
trying to make a ‘mark’ in their field and gain publicity via the uniqueness of their theory. The news
media clamors for junk-science in their war for ratings, (money). Theories are presented by the media as
questions. This approach helps the media avoid liability. It also flatters the audience and makes them
think they have not been led to an agenda’s conclusion7. Theories become topics of conversation, and
seeds are planted but only half-truths sprout8.

It is a paradox but we have entered a modern version of the “Dark Age”. Please recall that the Dark Age
was a period when religion suppressed science. Now religion is covertly suppressed, (just as I tried
overtly to do in my youth). Junk-science dominates popular thinking in the masses. The fact that we
exist in a period of “liberal McCarthyism” does not help matters. Who will lead the renaissance?

Two Choices
How did we get here? There are only two possible answers. We were created or we evolved from
lightning striking a primordial sea. The latter is presented first.

First Darwin
Darwin was less than half right. He made some observations and then he drew some very racist
conclusions. These conclusions became a book-theory titled “The Origin of Species”. Darwin’s book-
theory is so racist that, if written today, it would earn any book tour a Nelson Mandela and a United
Nations boycott. This goes to my point regarding scientific urban legend. Most people have not read the
book; they only get the junk-science bits and pieces, the sound-bite, or the “did you hear what they are
doing now” bit.

Let us apply the scientific method to Darwin’s book-theory. The following is simplistic but illustrative.

1) Observe some aspect of the universe. Animals have adapted to their surroundings.
2) Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed. Animals change characteristics
through natural selection; that is, animals that do not adapt, do not live to reproduce.
3) Use the theory to make predictions. Given enough time, a species will change specific
characteristics based on their environment.
4) Test those predictions by experiments or further observations. It was observed that larger
brainpans in humans develop where food is harder to find.
5) Modify the theory in the light of your results. One species can evolve into another.
6) Go to step 3. Somewhere, someday, we will find a missing link. Uh-oh! We are stuck!.

5
Even Charles Darwin was responsible enough to propose a theory and not a Law.
6
An ordered system ALWAYS moves toward disorder.
7
When I ask you a question, my motive is to make you think logically. There is only one correct conclusion –
remove prejudice and think!
8
Scientific urban-legend

R.C. Law Page 2 of 4

 There Is A God
Despite the most spirited attempts to prove this theory, it has not happened. Science has never been
able to show a change from one DNA structure to another based on natural selection. Yes, we can show
high visual impact changes in appearance or behavior based on the environment, but a rat remains a rat
with rat DNA.

Let us assume for the sake of amusement that we have a rat in a lab for 40 million years. We finally get
a genetic change, (that survives the genetic differences with its mother), and the new species prefers to
stand on its hind legs and watch soap operas. How do we propagate the new species? Where is the
female, (my Chauvinism shows)? Are the odds that we get the same permutation of male and female in
the same 40 million years during the exact same live cycle within the realm of statistical reality? Science
states “no”, (but insists “yes”). If we jump into the mix and make a female from the male’s DNA, have we
not become God? And no, the Chaos Theory won’t help the evolution position either. You can’t add
infinity to the 40 million years in this example and strengthen the Evolution position. So why do some
insist all this is possible? This is an easy question with an easy answer; some cannot accept the
alternative.

Alternative
We were created. The Laws of physics are correct, and these Laws are not in conflict with Creation.
Yes, there are differences in the various orders of the species Homo-sapien, and these differences are
based on environmental influences as Darwin states. But we are Homo-sapiens with common genetic
material just like Chihuahuas and Great Danes are canines with common genetic material. Genetic
material does not and can not start from dirt and evolve upward and become more organized. This
notion is contrary to the Laws of Physics and cannot be explained away with a bunch of years and
impossible statistics. No statistician would accept the odds. I guess there is a new rule for the Scientific
Method; a Theory in conflict with any Law is not valid except for the Theory of Evolution.

“Yes, but we could have been created by advanced civilizations!” some philosopher says. Yes but “who
created the advanced civilization”; 40 million years of probability in the wilderness? Did you hear about
the scientists who approached God with a boast of how they could now create life from the ingredients in
common dirt? God acceded to their boast and asked for a demonstration. A scientist reached down to
get some dirt and God said, “No, make your own dirt!”).

Testimony
I recently had a spirited conversation with a gentleman named Chris on this subject. It was so frustrating
because it was like arguing with myself via a time machine. This gentleman could not even accept my
statement that I once held his position – that was too threatening to his mental shell. I was constantly
barraged with the statement that all I had was faith on which to base my entire position. How very
wrong. First I have science. Second, but more important, I have first hand experience. Here it goes…..

I was converted from atheist to Christian in an instant, in nothing short of a miracle. My road to
Damascus was 1407 Jefferson Street in Houston. My task at the time was to check some references in
the Bible. I was reading “Chariots of the Gods” by Erich von Daniken. Von Daniken made reference to
flying saucers in the book of Ezekiel. After checking his references, I randomly turned to one of the
Gospels in the New Testament. After reading a few lines, an overwhelming presence filled the room and
intimated that I was reading the infallible word of God. Rather than being blinded like Saul, my eyes
were opened. God sent his messenger or his spirit to me for the most profound few seconds of my life.
Faith is not required when you have first hand experience. No, I’m not special. If anything I am
ashamed for not having done more with this gift of experience. Maybe this document is a start.

R.C. Law Page 3 of 4

 There Is A God

Conclusion
Please forgive my pathetic attempt at the science involved. Engineers apply science. We tend to be
pragmatic rather than theoretical. There are numerous and credible documents on the subject of
creational science written by competent technical people. Here is an interesting fact. The more that
scientists, (and other technical people), learn about their field, the more the family of God is increased.

There are only two choices here. One is insupportable and obviously wrong - the other is unquestionably
right, not only by the process of elimination, but by all that is natural and normal and reasonable.
Proponents of Evolution selectively ignore scientific fact and law to perpetuate their delusion. If you get
one of these people mad enough to accept a fair scientific test of the evidence, you will win a convert and
a soul.

We are at war. This evolution thing is just a battle. The other side cheats and will not follow the Geneva
Convention. Know your enemy by reading the Book. Here is a prediction. The “Theory of Evolution” will
soon be called the “Law of Evolution”.

So yes, Mark, I can prove there is a God, but there are two caveats. First, you must use the same rules
as the scientists, or second, you must to accept my testimony.

R.C. Law Page 4 of 4