Posted by: BibleScienceGuy | December 4, 2013

25. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 11 – Rick Smalley

The Argument from Design is a powerful argument for the existence of God. It has convinced countless people throughout history and it’s used throughout the Bible.

Complex designs require a Designer to produce them. The kind of information the designs contain can only come from an intelligent Agent. This is the Argument from Design. The prequels of this Evidence for God series have extensively discussed the Design Argument.

Evolutionists promote the view that scientists support Evolutionism and that scientists do not believe evidence for design. But this is false. Many eminent scientists accept the Argument from Design.

This article and its prequels/sequels present quotations from a number of prominent scientists who have been convinced by the Argument from Design.

Richard Smalley

Prof. Richard Smalley

Rick Smalley

Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley (1943–2005) was Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University and the director of Rice University’s Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory. He received eight honorary doctorates during his career.

In 1996 Smalley won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of a new form of carbon consisting of 60 carbon atoms arranged in a spherically-shaped molecule. Because the molecule reminded him of architect Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome, he dubbed these soccerball-shaped carbon molecules buckminsterfullerenes (“buckyballs”).

Smalley was a leading researcher in nanotechnology and a strong proponent of its many applications. He is considered the Father of Nanotechnology and was so identified in a U.S. Senate resolution honoring him at his death.

Late in life after studying Intelligent Design, Smalley became an ardent anti-evolutionist. He said,

“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred.”
(From Evolution/Creation Debate Now Science vs. Science not Science vs. Religion.)

At Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation & Parents’ Recognition Program, the university awarded Smalley an honorary doctor of science degree for his work “as a scientist, professor, researcher and teacher.” In response, Smalley made this statement about evolution and Genesis:

“The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that Genesis was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved. … For whatever reason, this planet was built specifically for us.”
(From Scholarship Convocation Speaker Challenges Scholars to Serve the Greater Good, October 2004.)

In response to receiving Hope College’s Distinguished Alumni Award, Smalley said,

“Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life.”
(From Remarks by Richard Smalley at 2005 Hope College Alumni Banquet, May 2005.)

Even though Smalley was wrong about the age of the universe, he got the fundamental truth about a Creator correct. (See Age of the Earth 1 – Essentials for the first of a series of six articles on the Age of the Earth.)

Therefore…

Through a study of Evolutionism and Intelligent Design, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Rick Smalley became a believer in the Creator. He recognized the signs of design in the universe. He implicitly used the Argument from Design to conclude there must be a Creator.

Questions to Ponder
  1. The Argument from Design for a Creator was so strong that Smalley placed the burden of proof, not on creationists, but on those who dispute the Genesis record. Those promoting evolutionism have to prove it. Do you agree with Smalley’s assessment of where the burden of proof lies for the issue of origins? Why or why not?
  2. Smalley asked why Christianity is so powerful and vital in the lives of billions of people 2,000 years after its founder died. Do you agree with Smalley that the answer is that Christianity is true? If not, why not?
  3. Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.

Soli Deo Gloria.

This is the 25th article in the Evidence for God series that discusses the question,
“Is There Evidence for God?”
Read the prequels:
1. Evidence for God – Can You Answer a 6th-Grader?
2. Evidence for God – Design
3. Evidence for God – Experience
4. Evidence for God – Can You Prove God Exists?
5. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Simple
6. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Logical
7. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Biblical
8. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Old Testament
9. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – New Testament
10. Evidence for God – Stephen King & the Argument from Design
11. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz
12. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 1
13. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 2
14. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 3
15. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 1 – Ben Franklin
16. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 2 – Isaac Newton
17. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 3 – Johann Kepler
18. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 4 – Robert Boyle
19. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 5 – Albert Einstein
20. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 6 – Fred Hoyle
21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 – Harold Urey
22. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 8 – Charles Townes
23. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 9 – A. E. Wilder-Smith
24. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 10 – Robert Millikan

Read the sequel:
26. Evidence for God – Paul Walker & the Argument from Design

Bible-Science Guy logo

Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click
SUBSCRIBE NOW!

©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday December 4, 2013 A.D.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)

Advertisements

What do you think? Leave a comment...& please pray for the impact of the Bible-Science Guy ministry worldwide!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: