a universe so densely textured and soinfinitely rich by accident.RobertJastrow, who was an American astronomer and planetary physicist, a leading NASAscientist, said after his discovering on universe expansion, which went on theopposite direction of scientific intention to prove the inexistence ofCreation. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power ofreason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain ofignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself overthe final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sittingthere for centuries."Itruly believe that an honest scientist, who is looking for coherent answers,will always come to the conclusion that the ubiquitous teachings inUniversities and the propagation of theories through all kinds of media can beeasily challenged by serious and impartial studies on science itself.Theaffirmation that Science has proven everything is absolutely wrong. DavidBerlinsk, considered the world leader physicist, an American agnosticphilosopher, professor and author, the Senior Fellow from Center for Scienceand Culture of Discovery Institute, the center of design intelligent movement,says the following extremely important commentary. Please, bear in mind that heis an agnostic.- Hasanyone provided a proof of Gods inexistence? Not even close.- Hasquantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?Not even close.- Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to befine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.- Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anythingso long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.- Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understandingof what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.- Hassecularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not evenclose to being close.- Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought andopinion within the sciences? Close enough.- Doesanything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim thatreligious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.- Isscientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.Davidalso make important affirmations on the fossil records of the theory ofevolution. For him, it does not make any sense. It does notsustain prediction that can be intelligently derive. With regard of thetheory, as we all know, he says it was never able to be seen. Hementions about the generic algorism, that even a tremendous amount ofvery special manipulation in a computer would never generate anything realisticin biology. He concludes. Theres no laboratory evidence. Not evenone. The only ones who confirm this is the scientists themselves. This isknown and not new.Althoughsome are affirming that 99% of scientists are atheists and truly believe inEvolutionism, its known of thousands of scientists, as well as historians andarcheologists who have a robust and well-respected Christian faith.Butas clear as crystal is, science, generally speaking, has its problems withreligious faith. For instance, it affirms that miracles are not possible, whichshould be indeed said, and some does say, that it is not probable to exist, fora miracle was never scientific disproved. However, the problem I see on this isthat, when we look to the very nature, which