1. Keith Carnley says:


  2. notleia says:

    So this is a modification of “God of the Gaps,” then? Okay.

    • Travis Perry says:

      I would not use the term “gap” to describe scientific ideas that require so much fine-tuning (which run steeply “uphill” in the metaphor of these posts) as to be unbelievable as simply self-producing phenomena.

      Though there is some similarity in focusing on what modern science fails to explain as of right now in the way I’m doing and taking about gaps, I think you’re metaphorically pounding an peg that’s not round into a round hole.

      I don’t like that because I feel like you’re looking for a speedy way to dismiss what I’m saying by lumping it into a category instead of thinking it through. Though if you feel a need to do that, ok, I can live with it. Perhaps you’re the sort of person who simply refuses to consider that anything could be at least a little original and deeply needs to categorize everything wholly in terms of what’s already been done.

      But for the sake of others, I’m not talking about what happens at the margins of science, but rather ideas that are accepted as the center of modern cosmology and other sciences. I’m saying these ideas just don’t operate in the way it’s claimed they do. Experts in these fields are generally aware of how many problems these concepts have but that doesn’t get conveyed to the general public very well. I think experts also tend to be immersed in their own field to the degree that they lose perspective of a broad overview.

      I came to these insights by simply trying to understand what science says is true. That’s why I read books on physics and the universe intended for laypeople (and delve some into technical papers intended for experts), to simply understand. What I’ve learned by the grace of God (after working to understand truth for decades), I’m sharing in these posts.

      I do welcome you to keep reading–and even to continue to offer criticism. By so doing you give me the chance to explain things I might otherwise neglect.

      So thank you.

  3. I need to reread this post at least once. I admit I’m ignorant of basic auto repair so this is hard to understand. Still, I know cars with engine problems usually don’t go uphill.

    • Travis Perry says:

      True enough about cars with engine problems. But my point was a car without any engine at all certainly would not be going uphill. By which I mean to explain that science in effect claims that nature simply “runs downhill” from initial conditions. That if we grant the Big Bang, all else just happens naturally from there. But that is not in fact true–nature would have to do some immediately unnatural things for this model to work. Which is the equivalent of a car running uphill.

      Once we see a car running uphill, we conclude it must have a (working) motor. Likewise if observations of the universe require it to do highly unnatural things without a reason, that’s cause to suppose the universe had a motor–that is, something driving it forward (and I would say that something is God).

  4. Andy says:

    Hi Travis,
    I’m late to the party…was there a part 2 in this series? Thanks!

  5. Andy says:

    I mean to say that I see parts, 3, 4, etc….just not part 2…

What do you think?