I’m not sure that all this postulating about science, creation vs evolution helps anyone in their search for real meaning.

What is amazingly complex has been made simple, so that, even those who cannot do quantum mathematics, can enter the kingdom of God.  In the same way that we can all appreciate a beautiful sunset without knowing the science behind it. 

Those that have been given ‘clever’ minds ought to note well that one can easily miss out on the joy of finding faith just because the answer appears to be too simple.  At the same time, it is both: intriguing and challenging to set out on that road of discovery.

To know whether there is a God or not, one needs to set out with a humble attitude otherwise you’ll be distracted by your own agenda and you won’t be able to discern the truth.  Start reading your bible, study the New Testament scriptures and pray, asking for God to reveal himself to you.

I hope you find this helpful. Not deluded but delighted!

Professor Dawkins said that you cannot postulate something more complex than what you are trying to explain.  Amazingly, Dr. Lennox attempts to refute Dawkins’ assertion by providing a completely irrelevant and absurd analogy about two scratches (representing simplicity) on a cave wall which can be explained if we postulate the existence of a human being (which is complex).  HELLO ???  We don’t need to postulate the existence of human being because we all know that human beings exist!!  Hence, Lennox’s analogy is irrelevant.  To make Lennox’s analogy relevant, we could say:  “Here are two scratches on a cave wall.  Let’s explain these two simple scratches by postulating the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, which nobody has ever seen, heard, felt, or detected scientifically.” This analogy is relevant to the issue being debated.

Oh, but Einstein’s theories are simpler. They unite space and time, acceleration and gravity, stillness and inertial motion. In a nutshell, they are “299,792,458 m/s is the speed of masslessness.” They are certainly more difficult than Newton’s, but not more complex, and they explain much, much more.

A chinese archeologist gets to use “human intelligence” for free because she has overwhelming evidence that it does in fact exist. On the other hand, a bunch of perfect titanium cubes arranged by primes is something astronomically unlikely; it warrants the consideration of intelligent life.

Dawkins’ point is that he finds that theism is like encountering two scratches on Mars and concluding that intelligent alien life exists. He is saying that in the process of explaining complexity, and complexity itself and not something specific like the complexity of life, or of the cosmos, it is futile to begin the explanation assuming complexity. However, this argument can be turned on atheism: explain the existence of natural law. The atheist can do no other than shrug or declare it eternal, neither of which are explanations in the same manner that positing an infinitely complex God is no explanation of complexity. Dawkins’ point is that if complexity, in particular that of life, can be explained by nothing more than an agreeable planet, a primordial replicator, and the evolutionary process, do not undo your explanation by re-positing what you were originally trying to explain.