"The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now. Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence. Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy. Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information. Only intelligence can. I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology. ... Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own--a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative. There's no getting around it."
~ Professor Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups."
~ Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
[updated October 19th, 2017]
by Colin Denny Donoghue
Do you think your great, great, great (and so on) grandfather, was a fish?
If so, I recommend thinking about that more (e.g. is that idea disempowering?), and researching whether that idea is really true or not (it's not, as the information in this post will show).
The mainstream acceptance of Darwinian Evolution Theory as a fact, namely the theory that all life descended from single-cell organisms (which came into existence without any intelligence to give the needed complex genetic information), one species turning into another species (despite this never being observed), demonstrates the power of forceful persuasion. If a false idea is pushed on people repeatedly from "experts," and any questioning of the idea is forcefully slandered and rejected outright, trying to intimidate people to accept their view, many people will be intimidated, and are then less likely to do their own research and discover that the idea being pushed is false. This is exactly what you find with those pushing Darwinian Evolution, they often resort to name-calling/slander, ignore the evidence that macro-evolution (i.e. one species becoming another species) doesn't actually happen, and try to frame the debate as "Science vs. God" (as if those that believe in God are necessarily anti-science, when they're not). But if you get passed that manipulation and misinformation (on Wikipedia, social-media, popular magazines, in State-issued textbooks, etc.) and take a close look at the evidence refuting the so-called "proof" of Darwinian Evolution, you can find a lot of technical scientific literature, and common sense, showing that basic tenets of this theory don't fit with reality, despite all the heated assertions of those pushing it on humanity; the fact of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution Theory flunks the science test. The following is a brief summary of the main problems with this theory:
- No real fossil evidence of transitional forms between species/kinds
at all; "Lucy" and other so-called "evidence" of a transitional species
is laughable in quality and has been thoroughly refuted, as the videos
and listed books below, along with many other sources, show. Whether
pointing to an ancient bird fossil and saying it's "half reptile"
without scientific basis (plus a useful/good reptilian leg mutating,
becoming less useful, while slowly becoming a good wing over
generations, doesn't help their survival chances by the way!), or
pointing to parts of a verified ape species and saying they're human, it's all just a mess of so-called evidence
that has been scientifically disproved time and
time again; every supposed "transitional fossil" turns out not to be so
when you look deeper into it (getting passed all the misinformation).
If there were really all these transitional species, there should be
massive numbers of examples of them (since the process of gradual
evolution supposedly happens over millions of years), but the Darwinian
evolutionists can only pmoint to artist renditions and things like a
single tooth of "Nebraska Man" (that turned out to be from a pig!),
"Java Man" (that turned out to be a human), etc. This is probably why those pushing Darwinian Evolution tend not to
talk for long about specific fossil evidence of transitional
species from one kind of animal to another, or if they do it's pointing at more monkey, ape or human skulls. Speaking
of this commonly encountered tactic of avoidance of undisputed scientific evidence,
interestingly in the 2015 "Mistakes and Hoaxes" issue of Popular
Science magazine they have two separate articles on bunk evolutionary
science: the first on the "Piltdown Man," declared as another "missing
link" but turned out to be a hoax, and the second article on how the idea that
man evolved from apes doesn't actually hold up to the evidence. Admitting these
facts is very good, yet, for no scientific reason, they still insist
there is a "common ancestor" between humans and apes, even though they
cite no specific evidence for one! They just say there is, and that's
it. That's not real science. This heavily
slanted irrationality is typical of false belief, rather than of evidence
or experience taking precedence with one's claims about reality. They
refuse to let go of the evolutionary theory which has been proven bunk
over and over, and side-step the reality, referencing nothing in
particular, and apparently hope no one will notice! This same exact
thing is found in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin,
in which they speak of "infinite evidence" for macroevolution, but then don't get into the
details of any! Again they just expect you to believe the "experts."
This "science" documentary, just like the very misleading PBS TV Series Evolution, completely ignores all the scientists that reject Darwinian Evolution as unscientific. Also showing its scientifically hollow core, it is filled with long tangents on the
romanticized life of Darwin, plus a few cherry-picked Christians that believe in an absolute
literal interpretation of everything in the Bible; the makers of this documentary
(like current Wikipedia writers) were clearly trying to discredit the idea of Intelligent Design (and Christianity), but, to
anyone with some basic awareness of the issue, obviously failed, just as the PBS series failed, though both will sadly probably still work as effective propaganda on many. It
appears the alternative possibility of Intelligent Design is so
unacceptable to these evolutionary theory propagators that they will
continue to twist (or just declare!) so-called facts to fit an
evolution/atheist world-view so that design appears "disproved," even
after it has been admitted in mainstream publications that it's their own previous claims on evolution
that are the only thing that has been proven false.
National Geographic magazine (the same magazine that recently had a perverse cover photo of a boy dressed as a girl, pushing the transgender "revolution") had a cover story titled "Was Darwin Wrong?," and ridiculously highlighted the bulldog as proof that he wasn't! A bulldog is still a dog! It's not a new species!
- Related to the above problem of lacking fossil evidence for gradual progressive change in life-forms going from one species to another, there is no satisfactory explanation/evidence for how Darwinian Evolution mechanisms could have facilitated the "Cambrian Explosion," otherwise known as "Darwin's Dilemma." The fossil record of the immense number of new species suddenly appearing on Earth directly contradicts Darwin's "tree of life" hypothesis; there is not a slow gradual progression from simple to more complex life forms as his theory claimed.
- Other evolution theorists posit "cladogenesis" (i.e. one species jumping to/"branching out" to be another kind of animal without transition) as an alternative to the problem of lack of evidence for transitional species, but they also deliver no solid evidence/observation/explanation for their idea; in fact all that has been observed is the extinction of many species over time, not new ones popping up from older ones via physical birthing; therefore this other aspect of evolutionary theory is also not scientific at all, and it also contradicts the very definition of evolutionary theory! These evolutionists now say evolution occurs suddenly without transition (hence the "genesis," no irony using that term huh?), but that's exactly the opposite of what the theory has been proposing: gradual changes in species that result in a whole new species!
- Evolutionists claim that so-called "micro-evolution" leads to "macro-evolution" (i.e. Darwinian Evolution of one kind into another), but again this is just speculation without confirmed observation. The common claim by evolutionary theorists that "from one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" is a baseless statement (no authoritative specific evidence, only circumstantial); that's not good science!
- Changes within a species has been observed (like the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or change in coat-color of beach mice), but not a mutation that causes one species to become more complex, let alone another kind of animal. There has been no observation or evidence of mutation creating a new kind of animal (despite great efforts, especially with many generations of fruit flies), and yet this is given as the main means of evolution! Mutations have only been observed to recombine already existing information, or to result in a loss of information (a.k.a. genetic entropy); it doesn't add new information to the genome that would account for molecules-to-man evolution; the mutation-creates-greater-complexity-of-life theory is scientifically baseless. Also the amazing automatic DNA self-repair process stands in stark opposition to the mutation-to-new-species process, Evolutionists just discount the former as unimportant when it clearly is very important. And even with this amazing self-repair process of DNA that counters "beneficial mutation," what has been observed is genetic entropy, i.e. more and more non-beneficial mutations, which follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The consistent observation is that the human genome has been degrading over time, not evolving into superior form. Mutation is overwhelming destructive, not constructive.
- Chromosome-count change doesn't lead to macro-evolution, it results in an animal no longer being able to reproduce.
- No scientific explanation for the immense complexity of DNA (or the brain, etc., of all of the incredible life-forms found on Earth) occurring via random mutations. To say the immense complexity that comprises all the life-forms of such awe-inspiring beauty and functionality could come into existence simply via mutation, random chance and time is baseless irrationality (basically equivalent to saying a whirlwind in a junkyard could produce a fully functioning and polished Ferrari, if the whirlwind just had enough time!)... it's evidence-less theory, that also goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (we observe material things decay over time when left to themselves, they don't become more ordered). To posit that the amazingly functional biological complexity found on Earth (like humans) happened by Darwinian processes alone, without Intelligent Design of life-forms or of the supposed Darwinian life-making process, is accepting probabilities that are so astronomically low as to be impossible for all practical purposes. For example, based on the observed complexity of DNA, in order for that to exist by chance as it is in its fully functional and amazing form in even "simple" organisms, it's been calculated that we're talking about something like a chance of 1 in 10-to-the-600th power (1 followed by 600 zeros), a number so ridiculously large it's well beyond any comprehension, or relevance. Good science always rejects impossible probabilities, yet Darwinian Evolution proponents give a pass on this requirement, to blindly support their bunk theory. And regardless, on top of this mathematical implausibility, the idea of DNA manifesting randomly contradicts what scientists have observed and discovered about DNA:
- There is no evidence that DNA can exist without already existing DNA to create it; all observation shows no DNA manifestation from existing material substances. Evolutionists propose "abiogenesis" happens, i.e. "the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter," yet once again they can provide zero observational evidence for this ever occurring! Both DNA replication and correct reading of its code require information, information in enzymes that are precisely specified by the DNA itself; absolutely no by-chance creation of DNA by something of lesser complexity has ever been observed. The Law of Biogenesis states that no life can come from non-living matter, and this is for good reason, it is an observational fact that is in complete opposition to their abiogenesis theory.
- Natural selection is not a macro-evolutionary process, there is always a genetic barrier that prevents someone from breeding dogs into cats (or any other species). Darwinists utilize an insufficient natural process to try to remedy the problem of macro-evolution's impossible probability. The impossible remains impossible over time, yet they want you to believe some unobserved biological magic happens just because of the passing of a lot of time.
- One very common (and very bunk) claim made by Darwinisits is that similarity between some life-forms is proof of a common ancestor. Shared DNA is not proof of speciation (i.e. one species becoming another species). An analogy: Shared lego building blocks between lego creations doesn't prove that one lego creation can transform into another lego creation. A Darwinian scientist once used photos of similar cars (corvettes) in back-to-back model-years to supposedly demonstrate how macro-evolution happens, forgetting that each car was designed and made by intelligent beings! His "science" was bunk, just as is that which says my ancestors include bananas. Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, but that doesn't prove that humans and bananas have a common ancestry, it only proves that they share some of the same building material. (And by the way the claim that humans and chimpanzees have DNA that is 98% similar has been shown to be false, the number is about 70%.) Since having the majority of the same DNA building blocks is not sufficient to prove macro-evolution or explain how exactly organs, etc. would drastically change from one form to another, evolutionists resort to simple drawings they make up to try and deceive the public and/or rationalize their bunk theory. And when there are not similar enough looking species to line up next to each other in illustrations, those illustrations are often doctored in ways that there is no fossil evidence for whatsoever (putting in webbed feet, making Neanderthals (who were ancient humans) look more like apes, etc.). For the ape-to-human-connection they we able to convince many people because there are many extinct monkey and ape species they could point to, and fill in the gaps with "Lucy" etc.. This is their more convincing (while still very false) macro-evolution story, but then with animals like elephants or trilobites they have little to nothing to offer in their story-telling, so they usually don't talk about the latter. Again, some similar genetics or body structures does not demonstrate common ancestry, but just some common building materials and at times somewhat similar bodies. Returning to the example of similar cars (all of which were designed and created by an intelligent being), putting them side-by-side to prove that one morphed into the other is not "science," it's just a story that can seem plausible; lies often can seem plausible to people, but if they look and think more carefully they will discover that they are lies.
- Inference of intelligence (i.e. of Intelligent Design) from biological/physical evidence is valid science, to claim that scientific evidence can never indicate the operation of an intelligent being, is clearly false, e.g. scientists have been listening to signals in space for many years hoping to find some signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Inference of intelligence is also of course key to archeology and forensic science.
- The problem of "irreducible complexity," i.e. if you backtrack one step in the supposed evolutionary process of an organism, like say remove one of the components of the flagellum (a whip like appendage that moves around to propel a bacteria, spun by a precise biological motor), it wouldn't work at all, so the species would be at an extreme disadvantage, e.g. not being able to move. In Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in the "Difficulties on Theory" chapter, Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." And that's exactly what has been demonstrated by the flagellum, along with other biological components (see also book references below for even more details). Also speaking of the origin of life-forms, the clearest and most important example of irreducible complexity is the origin of life, which Darwinists have given no solid explanation for whatsoever, theorizing that it possibly involved "amino acids piggy-backing on crystals" and/or "advanced aliens"! Even "basic" proteins are actually of such a complexity that expecting them to form without design also doesn't hold up to analysis. How the initial building blocks of life actually turned into complex cellular life is completely unaccounted for, they just give unscientific ideas like that, or the classic "lightning strikes in a primordial soup could do it," even though this has never been observed or produced in a laboratory.
- Darwinian Theory has no solid explanation for consciousness, free will, or conscience. Speaking of consciousness, use your own to ponder this question: How could dead matter evolve into consciousness? And related to this, where did our conscience come from? And where did free will come from if there is no free will among atoms, etc. which always unwaveringly obey physical laws? Darwinian Evolution Theory, and the ultra-materialist anti-spiritual perspective that goes along with it, seems to be even against the obvious fact of our own consciousness and free will, by saying that we're governed simply by chemical processes and survival instincts.
When someone never admits real mistakes and they just keep coming up with additional irrational explanations to defend their ever-changing position, that's a clear indicator that false beliefs are what's really driving their ideas, not the scientific method. Evolutionists seem to care more about steering away from anything that might indicate Intelligent Design is at play (because of their atheism belief) than they care about discovering what the facts of life really are. This is why they keep changing their "proof," resorting to other false artist drawings and fossil evidence and/or microbiology studies that claim to demonstrate proof of macroevolution, but when looked into more carefully never really do. They make up stories, about horse evolution that is then disproved, and whale stories about their ancestors being walking land-mammals, and then when that's disproved they say, "Oh okay, they're ancestors were actually hippos," etc. etc. rather than just admit defeat. Another strategy of Darwinian promoters and internet trolls is to say something like: "You obviously don't understand evolution," and then leave it at that, hoping that their brief and inadequate quip of supposed superiority will be enough to persuade anyone reading the debate. Another common one is something like "Any science before 5 years ago is irrelevant," which is of course false, and just a convenient way to ignore their history of hoaxes and other disproved bunk science, ignore excellent resources like the books listed below, and try to marvel people with cherry-picked modern complex deceptive studies. (Worth noting: That dynamic of never admitting mistakes and engaging in one irrational diversion after another can be observed outside of science debates too, it's a hallmark of deep-seated denial based on false belief.)
"In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research." ~ Joe Crews, How Evolution Flunked the Science Test, p. 20This all shows that a) their theory is not actually sound, and b) they are more interested in defending their ideology than in following the scientific method and honoring whatever the truth is. They want people to believe bananas are our distant cousins (which is an extremely incredible idea, whether you are religious or not), and then ignore requests to show solid evidence for this claim. This inability to point to specific evidence is ongoing as I add this additional note now; the comments I keep receiving on this post from the Darwinian-Evolution-defenders consist of one diversion after another and/or one personal attack after another, but still no solid scientific evidence. Here's a good comment I found in reply to some of the aggressive/slandering anti-science pro-Darwinian Evolution trolls that abound online: "You should not make comments. You aren't helping the evolutionists' cause because all your speech is filled with hatred and scorn but no actual scientific refutations! ... - the things in this video [below] have certainly NOT been debunked. You are either lying or are just ignorant." The slanderous non-scientific comments being referred to, that I have also seen many times, just add further support to the scientific position rejecting Darwinian Evolution as fact. When Darwinian evolution has been put on trial by those who care more about the truth than pushing an atheistic world-view, it has been found clearly guilty of impersonating solid science.
As I said at the top of this post, the theory of Evolution has been pushed very forcefully on the population, by supposed experts, and so many "educated" people just take it as fact because they "trust the scientific community." In the same way, people follow the blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation version of Christianity that is pushed on them via the church establishment, because they trust in that too. Misplaced trust in, and one could even say the worship of, the false idols of hierarchical and authoritarian institutions is a long, sad and tragic story that continues to this day, disempowering and misleading countless people, generation after generation.
So what is so disempowering and misleading about the theory of Evolution? It's simple and subtle, but powerful. The main take-away from this theory, that remember says humans evolved from a "primordial soup," is: "You came from pond scum." Therefore the subconscious association made is "You are scum." And therefore also "There is nothing Divine about you," also supporting, "God does not exist." These beliefs do have an affect on the minds of men; for example the mass-murderer Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" ~ Interview with Stone Phillips on the NBC television program Dateline, Nov. 29, 1994.And then there is how "Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies," so clearly, the bunk science of Darwinian Evolution Theory has negative implications well beyond giving false information about biology.
The main affect of this theory on humanity, like all malevolent propaganda, is disempowerment. Think this evaluation is a stretch? Well, the reality is: Transmitting a very simple and subtle, but also very detrimental false idea, repeatedly and forcefully to your subconscious mind, is the very hallmark of effective propaganda. Darwinian Evolution Theory which is pushed on the population fits that formula perfectly, it is "Big Lie" propaganda that is pushed out in the open (like the official 9/11 story, from which the main subconscious takeaway is "I need the Government to protect me, the Government = the good guys."). There are of course other subtle forms of propaganda out in the mainstream too, like the popularized "revolutionary" street artists whose main imagery depicts common people as rats/vermin, or who plaster the word "Obey" everywhere, neither of which is revolutionary at all, despite whatever "clever" rationalizations are given in explanation. The subconscious doesn't deal with those rationalizations, it deals with "I'm scum," "I'm vermin," "I should obey," and "Government is good/needed and keeps us safe." Those that seek to control populations (yes, there really are such authoritarian people, if you doubt this read a little history), especially in current times, seem to know that the power of belief serves them better than anything else, and if you get the population to believe extremely disempowering ideas like that of scum-of-the-earth Evolution and distorted blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation Christianity, then the masses are much much easier to control; both science and religion have been clearly manipulated via establishment institutions to serve the purpose of mind/population control. You can dismissively call this a conspiracy theory, but then that would just ironically reveal another false belief you've been indoctrinated to hold, i.e. that conspiracies don't actually happen on a regular basis; conspiracies (i.e. people working secretly together for a selfish/harmful purpose) are commonplace in the corporate, political and economic realms of society; that's just a common-sense fact. Once you see clearly how the main scientific and religious ideas pushed on us are complete bullshit, and you see why those ideas would be pushed, it's no stretch of the imagination, it's actually waking up to the truth.
The following are excellent resources on the theory of evolution for evaluation, keep in mind that the science academy/institutions have been heavily censoring the publication of reputable articles concerning Intelligent Design and/or showing the faults of Evolutionary Theory (and firing/"disciplining" any scientists that even mention Intelligent Design), so these books in particular are how the quality information has thus far been best presented to the public (though the videos/interviews and websites below also contain excellent information):
- No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (2nd Edition) by William A. Dembski
- The Edge of Evolution by Michael J. Behe
- Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
- Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
- The Case against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined by James Perloff
- Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism by James Perloff
- Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel
- Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells
- Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Lee M. Spetner P.h.d.
- Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John C. Sanford
- Undeniable Design by Douglas Axe
"Scientists Prove Human Evolution Being a HOAX."
"Frog to Prince"
It would be wrong to not address the subject of Divinity in more depth here, since it is of course very worthy of discussion, and is usually part of the debate concerning the origin of life, so I will do so now, but briefly, since this post is more about disproving Darwinian Evolution than it is about trying to convince people there is a Divine Creator. Many atheists point to evils in the world as proof that there is no loving Divinity. This perspective operates on certain assumptions, though as far as I've seen, usually never directly stating the assumptions, probably because their perspective would become instantly less solid-sounding if they did:
Assumption #1: "There is no evil force opposing the Creator." This is quite an assumption, being that it goes against thousands of years of theology, history and psychology that clearly point to exactly the opposite. They assume that the Creation hasn't been corrupted by separate evil, and isn't continuing to be corrupted further by separate evil, even though the evidence for that grows daily.
Assumption #2: "A good God wouldn't permit evil." And you know this without a doubt... how exactly? You know the entire metaphysical reality and what is ultimately necessary and/or for the best? This is basically the "I'm enlightened" atheist perspective... yet I'm pretty sure they're not enlightened/omniscient. Also the question of evil has very intelligent responses from current and ancient philosophers, e.g. that in order for there to be people with free will evil has to be allowed as a possible choice, otherwise we would all just be programmed robots, which would be a world without love or freedom, and so not worth creating.
Assumption #3: "Natural Disasters and Birth Defects prove there's no loving Creator and that Intelligent Design is false." A study of the Earth's amazingly complex and against-all-odds life-sustaining operations makes fixation on natural disasters irrational, and also ignores their unavoidable existence within the Ecology/Earth-Sciences that is overall life-preserving (e.g. Plate Tectonics: "For life, advanced or primitive, to exist for more than a few million years, a planet’s crust must easily crack into movable plates that can slide both past and underneath one another.") As for birth defects, again this is irrational fixation, ignoring the fact that the majority of babies are still, even with the problems of genetic entropy, extreme increases in toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. born perfect. (Similarly atheists will point to "Junk DNA" and vestigial organs as evidence there is no designer, while both fixations again ignore the bigger reality, and also ignore the repeated revelations concerning what was at first thought useless turned out to be not so). They also ignore the fact that leading causes of birth defects are caused by evils of human society that were not part of the original natural design at all, e.g. chemical/radioactive weapons, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, x-rays and other tools of modern medicine, etc. Creation has been increasingly corrupted; to ignore the pure origin and focus only on the present is irrational. So Assumption #3 ignores the details of physiological/geological reality and history, and that does not make for a good basis of argument (nor does any assumption).
"No one has ever seen a quark, and we believe that no one ever will. They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own. Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? ... In summary, it's because quarks make sense of a lot of direct physical evidence... I wish to engage in a similar strategy with regard to the unseen reality of God. His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: the order and fruitfulness of the physical world; the multi-layered character of reality; ... the phenomenon of Jesus Christ... I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases. I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion. ... In their search for truth, science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin."
~ John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 98-100
"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."
~ Sir John Templeton