Engineering Aspects of Apologetics

Evidence for God in Design and Engineering

Okay, I'm Terry Kammerzell here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee. We love to learn about our creator God and we believe the Bible when read properly rules out the possibility of millions or billions of years.

We used to meet for 10 years at the Creation and Earth History Museum in Santee, California. Tonight we welcome our 90th new speaker since meeting online. Our mission statement is 1 Peter 3 .15. Always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.

You can see a list of our upcoming speakers by visiting tinyurl .com forward slash CF Santee. That's C like creation, F like fellowship and Santee is spelled S-A-N-T-E-E. Steve Hendrickson is a somewhat new friend of our ministry and tonight we're happy to have him speak for us.

Steve's teaching has spanned from 1977 teaching electronic systems repair in the U .S. Air Force to 2011 teaching thermodynamics at the University of Virginia. His apologetics teaching began in 1993 and continues to the present.

You can even find some of his articles in the Creation Club magazine. And with that, Steve, I'm happy to turn it over to you.

Okay, well, thank you and welcome to everyone. I'm going to go ahead and share the screen and put my slides up. Okay, and I'm going to go and I'm going to turn off my speaker, I think.

Your camera, you mean?

Yes.

And we can see your presentation, but it's not as the slideshow right now.

Okay, so it will be when I hit this, I think. There we go. Okay, and hopefully you can get rid of the other stuff. But anyway, I went ahead and used Terry's graphic. I really liked it. I think she did a good job on that and I appreciate it.

So the first thing I'm going to talk about is engineering. Is there evidence for God? And we can look at that in terms of the simple facts of design and things we find in nature. And there happens to be a very good verse for that.

My background is, since I retired from the Air Force, has been electrical systems design. And that theater you see in the left-hand side is one of my designs. It was in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and we did a performing arts theater there, which is a pretty complicated electrical system design.

And so I need to get rid of this. So is there a way to slide it off the edge?

I guess there is. Okay, good.

So anyway, I've done, since retiring from the Air Force, I've done designs a lot of the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, seminaries in the areas, commercial properties, large churches, large high schools, and mostly three-phase power, 480 volts three-phase systems typically, and lighting systems, and of course, fire alarm systems for life safety.

The U .S. Air Force career spanned from 77 to 97. When I joined the Air Force, I enlisted, and I earned three Associates of Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Associates of Applied Science is probably better than an Associate's degree simply because you need to know how to do the technician requirements for those.

So I've always considered to be kind of the premier Associate's degree. And then I got, the Air Force sent me to Ohio State University, and I got a BSEE in 86, and then they sent me to the University of Washington in 1990, and I'd have an MSEE degree from there as well.

My academic rank is currently Assistant Professor, I'm pretty much retired from that, and Design and Electrical Engineering, I retired from that back in 2015, is when I retired from that. So anyway, I've been doing apologetics ever since.

The Imperial Center was one of my first big jobs that I did, and the theater is actually in the center background there, where we did the Performing Arts Theater, but that was one of the first ones I started on.

Design, Purpose, and the Evidence in Nature

So what is engineering about? It's about design, and of course, God did it first. Design, just remember this, it's plan and purpose. You have to have some purpose that you need, and then you have to have a plan to do it.

And that's really what it is. And God gets the glory when you actually look at real designs, and real designs, I would call when you look at life systems and things like that. So what is the design verse?

Well, this is very well known by most people on this website, at least, since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

So you can look at what God has done in nature, whether it be a blade of grass, or a beetle, or maybe a lizard crawling across the ceiling in your house, or something like that. You can see those things that are there, and those are real designs.

If you understand a cell, a cell is a factory, and it has a lot of stuff going on there. And that is all part of God's system. And so when people tell me, hey, do you have any evidence for God? I'll just say, well, if you said that to God, and he said you have no excuse, how would you answer that?

I like to sort of challenge them a little bit, you know, well, if he did show me this and that, no, no, no. The simple fact is, is that God has given us a ton of evidence, and I'm going to explain that in here.

So this is what I call the design verse, but I also call it the biomimetric, biomimetics verse, which simply means mimicking nature and mimicking what we see that is out there. Biology, molecular biology is mimicked in many respects.

And so it's also, I call it the engineering verse and the biomimetics verse. So what are some, these are the five points I'm going to make, and you would think with five points, it ought to be pretty easy to do a slide quickly, a slide show quickly, I should say.

But there's a lot to it. We're going to look at atheist blind spots and what real science is. We're going to look at important terms like specified complexity, irreducible complexity, information, and reductionism, and make sure you understand those terms.

The design argument is called the teleological argument. Matter, energy, and information is next. We're going to make sure we have an understanding of those and how they relate. Also, what is a reasonable faith?

So I will ask that. You know my faith is based on the Bible, based on Christianity, and the fact that Jesus Christ imputed his righteousness to me, and that's the only way I can go to heaven. And fortunately, he took the punishment for my sins.

So that's where I stand.

All right.

Atheist Blind Spots, Science, and Truth Claims

So the atheist blind spot, in many cases, the atheist is like a person wearing blinders. That's usually for a horse, but you can have this blind spot that's out there, and let me show you a few. And first of all, think about it.

If the Bible is true and science is the search for truth, which it is, then we would expect the Bible and science to be in harmony. So the Bible's called the anvil of God. It's sustained many hammer attacks over the years.

And the nice thing about engineering is engineering is nothing more than applied science, and science needs to be based on empirical data. So we'll talk about that. Well here's Richard Dawkins standing on a bus.

There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. Well, that was in 2009 when he made that statement and that article came out. And the simple fact is, is that he's an opponent, certainly, of the Bible and of people who believe in the Bible, especially in the science community.

And he says, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children.

Okay, I would say, I would challenge him a little bit. I've seen him in person. He's been to the University of Virginia, and I happen to know a lot of professional engineers, and I've seen and read that many Nobel Prize winners are Christians.

So that doesn't seem to reflect well with what he's saying here. So you know, Plato said, no one is more hated than he who speaks the truth. Well, the truth will always sound like hate to those who hate the truth.

And thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever. Psalm 119, 160. It's a good verse to remember. I'll come back to that slide later. Also, are we supposed to trust science?

Science News is a weekly magazine that used to come out, and I used to subscribe to it. Do I trust one but not the other? Well, actually, the Bible has many more reasons, good reasons, and you guys have people every week or so, or you do take some breaks in between, but these people come along, Jason Lyle, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Mike Riddle, and others.

They come along and they tell us very good evidences for biblical truth, and they strengthen our faith. Iron does sharpen iron in this respect, that we get strengthened when we hear that. And when somebody opposes something, that can also sharpen the iron when we get together.

So good biblical truth there.

All right.

Reconciling Science and the Bible Without Blind Faith

Now, can we reconcile science and the Bible? Well, Stephen Jay Gould said it was non-overlapping magisteria, but what we should do is we should use good logical arguments. It's not a blind faith. We do have the same evidence everyone else sees that's out there.

So let me present this to you. I'm going to take the left in the top middle second, because it's more difficult. The first two are pretty easy, and I'm going to actually bring my magnifier up here, and I'm going to come over here and fit Carl Sagan's quote in here, and we'll come back to this.

Quote.

But Carl Sagan said, the cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever was, or ever will be. He did say that. It's in a book I have in my library. And if people know my library, they will say I have a pretty big library.

All right.

So if every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense.

If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true, and someone would find a way to figure it all out again. These are two examples right here of what I call hand-waving. They have a hidden assumption.

Their hidden assumption is that there is no God. And so therefore, they're just hand-waving. They're not accepting a maxim I say, that things happened either naturally or not. And believe it or not, you can get people to agree with you on that.

Now, if you're going to say it happened naturally, then the evolutionary paradigm, the teaching there, does make sense. But if God exists, it changes everything, and it certainly can make Penn Jillette incorrect on his science quote here.

But now let's go to a more difficult case. Oh, by the way, I would just say, Jesus replied, your mistake is that you don't know the scriptures and you don't know the power of God. That's the problem with Sagan and Jillette.

All right, so this one's better. I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one less God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I knew that when I was working with the idea clubs and other things at the University of Virginia, I was going to have some smart students who wanted to use this type of an argument with me. And I said, I had to think about it.

How do I answer this argument? And I came up with what I think is the best solution. I've seen other solutions, but I like mine the best. And so anyway, here's how I handle that argument. This is a category error on the part of Stephen Roberts and those who would use his argument.

It's a category error. Here's the problem. If you have, this is not a category of true or false gods by number. The category is truth about no God versus a true God and what those attributes would be.

For example, if I have a counterfeit $20 bill, how many counterfeits do I have? I may have a thousand counterfeit $20 bills. But if I understand and recognize all of the important characteristics of the proper $20 bill, then I know what the truth is in this.

And so really, it's the category of a true $20 bill versus a non-true $20 bill. And so that's the category. So it's not this true or false gods number. It's really the truth being the category. I prefer to use that argument and I have used that argument and been able to with good.

I mean, it's never failed as far as I can tell with those people who bring it up. As a matter of fact, I've had compliments of people saying, yeah, that's not a bad argument. Great. Good to know. Another thing I want to point out is that we have a distorted understanding of science.

For example, Freeman Dyson said, The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths.

It is a continuing exploration of mysteries. That's true. Charles Bennett, who was professor of astronomy, of physics and astronomy at John Hopkins University and a principal investigator for NASA, wrote the following letter to the editors of Science.

This is in 2011. Science is an important magazine. He said, The title of the six main news of the week story, At Long Last, Gravity Probe B Satellite Proves Einstein Right, page 649, made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn't prove theories.

Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn't have expected Science magazine of all places to say a theory was proved.

The editors responded, Bennett is completely correct. It's an important conceptual point and we blew it. I love that. You know what? The closest thing to we have to a truth or a proof or a fact in science is a law of science.

For example, in electrical engineering, there's Ohm's law. There's Kirchhoff's laws for current and voltage. And in thermodynamics, which is more like a mechanical engineering science, although electrical engineers get into it when it comes to dissipating heat in electronic circuits and stuff like that.

The second law of thermodynamics is an excellent one, as well as the first law. And those are things that we have observed that have never been abrogated or found wrong. So that's an important slide. Here is one argument I love to use.

And by the way, you don't have to have a sheet of paper, but you can have, say, a envelope or a napkin, even if you're talking to someone at a restaurant, having coffee with them. But anyway, I'd like to point out and lay out the piece of paper there.

You could do this at the University of Virginia easily enough. I say, OK, all of the collective knowledge in the universe is represented by this piece of paper. So ask, how much do I know? How much do you know?

And hand them a pencil and point out with good reason that we can only know a minuscule amount of it. OK, by that, I mean, you could ask some questions like, well, you know, on Uranus, there's moons around Uranus.

What do we know about those moons? I mean, do we know what the weather was there yesterday or right now? There's just all sorts of ways you can explain it. And you can go right into the deep blue sea and you can go into the cell and you can go into a whole bunch of other parts.

And pretty soon they'll understand. They're just going to put a little dot on that piece of paper. So we really don't know. And here's the thing. There's an awful lot you don't know. So much of what you don't know may provide all the proofs and things that you really need to believe.

And that sort of thing. So get them to open their minds. And that's what I try to do with that. All right. I'm going to give you a practical example. And this is one I've been using since the mid 90s.

I became a Christian in 93. But I one thing I had trouble with is my first major back in 1974 was astrophysics. It was before I became an electrical engineer and before I was in the Air Force. And when I became a Christian in 93, it was kind of like, wow, don't we know the Andromeda galaxy and stuff like that are millions of light years away?

In other words, we're seeing the light from them for a long time ago. But I'm reading these things in the Bible about God stretches out the heavens. For example, Job 9 .8 stretched out the heavens. Psalm 104 to go on down to, you know, number eight, the Lord, your maker, who stretched out the heavens, Isaiah 51 or 11.

Thus declares the Lord who stretched out the heavens. We have that all over the place. That's very interesting. And I said, well, when did we measure the speed of light? And so I went back and I studied some of the old measurements.

And I found this guy named Leon Foucault, who was known for the Foucault pendulum. And one of the things he did was an experiment that has been repeated many, many times over the years. But it was a good way of measuring the speed of light.

I found that was in 1862. And here's what he got. He ended up right here, and I'm going to bring that up a little bit. Right here, he goes, okay, what was his measurement? He would determine it to be 298 ,000 kilometers per second.

The accepted speed of light is 299 ,792 ,458 meters per second. So he was very close. And that has been repeated. That experiment's been repeated. So it's worthwhile. Therefore, since we have those things, I went ahead and did what an engineer does.

An engineer puts a graph on a whiteboard. He goes, okay, I have the speed of light on the y-axis, on the x-axis, I have years. I start from today, I go back to 1862, and the year is now 2024. So there I have actual data back to Leon Foucault on a measurement.

And it seems to be a constant speed of light. I would agree. However, how old is the universe? And at the time I was doing this calculation, the universe was around 13 .8 billion years old. And I said, okay, I'm an engineer, it's easy to make a calculation.

How big is that orange line there, that backward extrapolation? Well, it turns out to be 138 million feet beyond the whiteboard. In other words, if I had 100 years equaling one foot on my whiteboard, it would be 26 ,136 miles of a backwards extrapolation.

And I'm going to tell you, an engineer doesn't like it much when you go about more than 10 beyond the data, the known data. So when I saw that, I said, you know what, we are making a huge, massive assumption here.

And the massive assumption is very simple. We are saying the speed of light has been a constant, and yet we're dealing with an almighty, all-powerful, omniscient God. There is no reason in the world he couldn't have stretched out the heavens and used whatever speed of light he needed.

It could have been infinite. We just don't know what it could have been. And it could have changed, really, our understanding of cosmology. And the James Webb Telescope nowadays is changing our understanding of cosmology as we look at it.

However, the speed of light being a constant, we can't guarantee that. We only have data that goes back to 1862 as an accurate measurement. So, get this, if you can change the speed of light in a laboratory, and you can.

If you can change radioactive decay rates in a laboratory, and I've talked to nuclear engineers, and they say, yeah, we can do that. Then why can't God do that too? And I would say, I'm no longer worried about the speed of light, and I'm really no longer worried about radiometric dating.

I just know that there are massive assumptions involved, and I mean massive assumptions involved. All right, also, when we study light, that is the electromagnetic spectrum. I went to Ohio State University, and they used to brag, and they used to say, you know what?

Our university teaches master's level electromagnetics to all of our undergraduate students in electrical engineering. Aren't we good? And I said, well, would that mean, if I went to one of the professors, does that mean we understand everything we need to know about electromagnetics?

And they go, oh, no, no, there's all sorts of things we don't understand. And they would also say, but, and I might say, well, how about the speed of light? Do we understand that as a constant? Oh, yeah, we accept that.

Well, they don't really have any reason for accepting that, other than that's their particular choice to do that. The simple fact is, is we don't know that much about light. And I recently posted on Facebook an example of ball lightning, which is something we don't understand.

But we also don't understand the power of lightning. And as a design electrical engineer, I used to have design lightning protection systems for buildings. But we know that lightning has tremendous power, and it can kill a bunch of cattle.

Farmers need to know about thunderstorms in the area, and they need to keep their cows away from trees, because the tree stands out there like a lightning rod. And then it sets up voltage gradients on the ground, which stops the heart of the cows, and the cows all die in lots.

I used to have pictures and slides of this when I would teach lightning protection in the Air Force Institute technology classes. So anyway, that was good. Also, I met this guy named Jason Lyle. He's one of my favorite people, certainly a great astronomer, apologist for the faith.

He came and stayed at my house one night when I got him to speak in a nearby church. And I had first met him in 2004 at Liberty University. And he and Danny Faulkner were together sort of backstage, and I got a chance to go in and talk to him for about 45 minutes or so.

I don't know that Danny would recognize me, but Danny and I ought to be good friends, because he and I are the same age. And it'd be fun to get to know him better, but I've only spoken to Danny in person that one time.

And I've spoken a few times on the phone to him, but I don't know. But during that time, I was able to tell them my story about...

Steve?

Yes.

And Danny's going to speak for us very soon.

Yes, next week, right?

Yeah. Is it next week? Yeah.

Okay, well, I'll be here.

Okay.

Okay. All right.

So anyway, I was getting ready to take him to the airport. I had this picture taken.

Thank you.

All right.

Now, we're going to leave from here. I took him to the airport. He got there fine. He's still, you guys know, he's out there doing a good job.

All right.

Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Information

Now, important terms. Specified complexity, irreducible complexity, information, and reductionism. We need to understand those terms, and I have a really good way of explaining them, I think, as far as everybody will understand.

So, I'm going to talk about specified complexity here. Common pebbles in a stream bed. Well, how about if you find those in a stream bed? No? What's the difference? Well, here's the difference. I love to use this slide.

I like to do like a little engineering analysis of an arrowhead. The arrowhead compared to pebbles in a stream bed. Note that both are complex. But the arrowhead has specified complexity. Let me just bring that up a little.

And there we go. Is that going to work?

Okay.

Both have specified complexity. Both are complex. Arrowhead has specified complexity. It displays what we call design, plan, and purpose. One, it's tapered to a point to quickly pierce animal skin with high point pressure.

Two, it's beveled on the sides to deeply cut into the animal. Three, the flat shape is there to enhance penetration into the animal. Four, the base is shaped to enable attachment to an arrow shaft and to resist dislodging from the animal after penetration.

That would be an engineering analysis of it. The arrowhead is designed, hence the plan and purpose, that is clearly seen when compared to a complex pebble or rock. So that was a slide I made up, must have been 1995 or so when I first made this slide up.

And here we go. Well, we have common clouds, although the one in the upper right might be a little worrisome if you see it. But those are common clouds formations, nothing unusual there. But if I see that, I have specified complexity in that.

As a matter of fact, I have more than that. I have information coming from that as well.

Okay.

How about this? We have a common rock formation, well-known in areas of the western states. But is it hiding something? Well, it is once you have work and energy put into it. You have the face of this guy.

Well, Crazy Horse Monument is where you see that. In South Dakota, I think it is. Devil's Tower. That was used in movies and things like that. It's a very popular natural thing, we understand. But if you have a creationist engineer or geological engineer versus other geological engineer, you might have some severe disagreements in how it was formed.

Here we have a non-natural formation. This is not from wind and weather erosion, of course. Mount Rushmore? Faces?

No way.

All right.

In Virginia, that's where I was, central Virginia. Natural bridge. Virginia is very common. This is a common thing to go see. And you can see how small the people are there. But it's kind of a fun one to go see.

I've been there. Pretty neat. But Monticello, our electrical firm did a lot of work at Monticello.

And stuff like that.

And that's Thomas Jefferson's home. And it was a very nice structure and stuff. And you could understand his European influence and that sort of thing when you saw it. But that is not natural. That is something that's man-made.

And by the way, we're doing a lot of work there because it's falling apart and breaking down. And that's why we have to do that. Here we have a great monument to Noah's Flood. It's a global event. That's what the Bible tells us.

And we have a great monument to a recent volcano eruption, a local event from Mount St. Helens. And there's a whole different talk you can do on this. So those are great reasons to understand what we see in terms of figuring out where specified complexity and that sort of things take place.

OK, next. Michael Behe uses this as an example. That is a mousetrap. OK, kind of a little joke. But anyway, the mousetrap system has several irreducibly complex requirements. It has a platform, a catch, a holding bar.

If you take any one of these pieces away from it, it will not work. And so therefore, you don't have what you need. That is called irreducible complexity. And that's from Professor Michael Behe. OK, so he did Darwin's Black Box.

He talked about all sorts of interesting things, including self-repairing mechanisms, such as blood clotting and stuff like that. But he also talked about this little thing called a bacterial flagellum motor.

It's very important. It was a little outboard motor with all the mechanical components and control system needed to move in position as required and an energy system and means of reproduction so more can be made.

That was all part of the design in our DNA. Perhaps one of the most interesting ones to me, by the way, that motor and this motor, from an electrical engineering standpoint, we're looking at microbiology or molecular biology, I should say, and we're seeing literally design, a very nice design.

The ATP synthase, it's an astounding nanomotor. About 40 quadrillion of these are in us. And the reason we say 40 quadrillion is because the estimate of cells in a human being is somewhere between 30 and 100 trillion cells in a human being.

And there's thousands of these motors in each cell. So, therefore, it goes up by another magnitude into the quadrillions. And so, on average, an adult human body can produce and consume its own body weight in ATP each day.

That's amazing. ATP synthase produces adenosine triphosphate, ATP, which is the primary energy currency of the cell. Without them, we die. Every cell, everything action that takes place in the cell requires energy.

And this is what produces the energy packets we need. And it could be, if you weigh 150 pounds, it could be 150 pounds your body produces in a day. So, it's an amazing machine and it better work or you're going to die.

So, it's a great one to use. I've seen this used in arguments. I would say debates more or less between atheists and maybe Dr. James Wyatt or somebody like that. He's used the ATP synthase as that. It's a great piece, a great unit to argue with.

Reductionism, the Limits of Science, and the Search for Meaning

Okay, reductionist thinking. This is an important point. Many quotes today show reductionism. And physicist Steven Weinberg and astronomer Margaret Geller, I believe they both have died by now. But anyway, the question was, why should it...

This is what Margaret Geller said. Why should it, the universe, be meaningful? What kind of meaning? It is simply a physical system. Where is its significance? That was stated by Margaret Geller. She's missing the point.

And this is how Dr. Werner Gitt talks about it. Weinberg and Geller are like physicists who evaluate a Bach cantata or violin recital only according to acoustical principles. Hmm, they're missing the point.

There's a very good thing that I had read about that I went ahead and put into a slide. It was the scientist and the scout. So the scientist is the guy who, you know, is very precise in his measurements.

And the scout, he's out there learning about new things to use. So here's the message. One warm summer evening, two people walk along the beach listening to the whisperings of the lapping ripples and watching the star-filled sky.

Neither is aware of the other. Suddenly a light flashes out at sea. How do they respond? The first one, a retired professor of physics, runs to his car where he keeps many physical instruments. He measures the duration of the pulses with a stopwatch, determines the intensity of the light with a photometer, and analyzes its spectrum.

He also locates the position of the light against the starry background. On the way back home, he stops a couple of times to repeat the position settings. Arriving home, his wife asks,. You seem to be excited, dear.

Did you see something unusual? Yes, he replies. I observed something which I could identify as a heated tungsten wire enclosed inside a silicate container. It radiated a regular set of flashes of visible light having an intensity of 2500 lumens at a distance of about 850 meters from the coast.

The other person on the beach that evening is a young scout on his way home. When he arrives home, his mother asks the same question. You seem to be excited, dear. Did you see something unusual? Yes, he replies.

I saw a boat signaling SOS messages. So I called the Coast Guard and they immediately dispatched a rescue boat. Everybody on board was saved. Both saw the event, but only one saw the message. And that's a good way to reckon.

We have a tendency to reduce things in the wrong direction. They're usually much more detailed than we take advantage of. And this is a very useful metaphor that has been used for years. So it's commonly called the six blind men and the elephant.

Okay, and you have to go back. It's kind of like the blank sheet of paper argument I previously used. But here we have the six blind scientists and the elephant. And so one's feeling the ear and it's a fan.

The other's feeling the tusks, it's a spear. And the trunk, it's a snake. And the leg, it's a tree. And the guy's on the side, he says, it's a wall. And the other guy says, it's a rope. There's a matter of perspective there, but they're all reducing it to only what they're seeing.

And that's the issue. So an American cartoonist named Sam Gross published a book featuring the blind men and the elephant. And I always have to laugh at this on the cover. However, one blind man was feeling a pile of elephant dung.

The book was titled, An Elephant is Soft and Mushy. I always thought that was kind of funny. Okay, the point is, we need to dig and work to get to the truth. We need to be aware of reductionism. And reductionism that can miss the meaning or the big picture of the scientific work.

And that's, I think, why many people miss God. So information, we're going to go to that now. It is an entity. The three fundamental entities, matter, material, energy, which is material, information, which is immaterial.

Dr. Gidd also adds a fourth. He calls will, but we'll be fine just with the three. You need to have an account of origins for all of the entities. That's the real reason you need to have them. So we'll talk a little bit more about this as we go, because we're going to have some other slides of Dr. Verner Gidd.

All right, so, I'm sorry, design argument or the teleological argument, as it's called. So we have the professional society or the National Society of Professional Engineers, NSPE. And they have a code of ethics.

And because I taught introduction to engineering as one of my college courses, I had this book that talked about the engineer's creed. And is there in a statement in there about divine guidance? Well, that's amazing.

And by the way, we also have Sagan, who wrote the movie Contact. That was an interesting movie. And I've used that many times to point out to people that this is one area where you have to come in and understand that there is a search for truth that needs to be done.