I became interested in Christian Apologetics when I was a college student. Actually I had lost my faith by the time I reached school senior years, and wanted to know the truth. That is the time when someone gave me a copy of Bible and Modern Science by Dr. Henry M. Morris.


From there it was almost 14 years of study — of Bible, history, archeology, the mathematics of probability, chemistry, and physics — before I came to the final conclusion. The conclusion was that a rational person needs to make a choice between evolution or creation based upon which of these models best fits the available evidence. I decided in favor of creation.

Dr. KG Bansigir, one of India’s most prominent physicist was the Professor and Department Head. The School of Advanced Studies and Research in Physics at the Jiwaji University was a centre of excellence at that time. Dr. Bansigir had seen to it that an atmosphere highly conducive for open discussion was created and maintained.

What the department called “Seminars” were a frequent event. In it a student or faculty member would speak for about an hour on a selected topic from Physics, and then the audience made up of MSc. students, PhD researchers, the professors, and (at times) specially invited subject specialists would grill this person for 3 to 4 hours on that topic.

The seminar was never easy for the speaker, but it forced him to think through the subject and present it in the most accurate way. I still remember when I was speaking about the Michelson’s Interferometer. A couple of professors from the Engineering College and the nearby Science College were present. As the questions proceeded, they finally came to a question where I was supposed to get a white band of light. On being asked the theory, I explained it with surgical precision, and then dropped a bombshell that the band I got was dark instead of white. You should have seen the commotion, because what I got in the laboratory was just opposite to what the textbooks had been saying for around four decades before me.

I was only into the second month of my MSc., but instead of brushing aside the anomaly I reported, my professor made it a point to spend several hours with me in the darkroom studying the anomaly. He then presented a “Seminar” in which he explained how textbooks and researchers tend to neglect anomalies — though anomalies often help one to perfect the theory. He then went on to present the mathematical justification for this anomaly. That was back in 1976. But many things happened after that.

The most important development was the academic bonding that developed between me and my professor. We made it a point to challenge each other’s assertions in a spirit of research and were not content till the other person offered a satisfactory answer to the challenge.

Once when I mentioned the evolution of life as the result of random processes, he immediately challenged me in the classroom. That was a bit embarrassing, because he was known to be a non-creationist. But that challenge worked wonders. He was the most outstanding teacher of the mathematics or Probability. Thus with his help I started to explore the depths of probability and molecular evolution. This was an eye opener.

He, to the best of my knowledge, never became a creationist. But by challenging my leaning towards evolution he questioned me on mathematical-scientific grounds. Eventually he helped me to see the impossibility of molecular evolution through blind chance.

Objectivity, whenever it is directed to science, has to result in the conclusion that blind chance is a destroyer and not creator of order.

Several years ago a smart-looking young boy came to me and said, "Sir I am an Engineering College student. I have been reading the Bible for some time and have come to you to argue that  that God does not exist. I heard you are an apologist, and also a physicist, so you and I can have a great time talking". I was happy to meet him, and welcomed him for a cup of coffee. 

On the appointed day he visited me at my home, and was unusually eager to talk. I once again asked him whether he was sure he wanted to argue with me, and he said yes. I then asked if he would keep his conversation strictly at the scientific level, seeing that is what he said the day before. He said he would keep his arguments strictly at the scientific level, and added that this would be the appropriate approach seeing that he was an Engineering student and I that I had a physics background.

Without delay I invited him to present at least one experimental or observational evidence that disproves God. He was suddenly possessed by silence. In fact he was dumbfounded. He had read plenty of publications written against God, and thought that these are all scientific arguments, but when confronted to support his contention that he would use science to argue against the existence of God, he was unable to advance a single evidence.

He than asked me to list my reasons for belief in God, and that he would refute all of them. I asked him whether such a refutation would amount to a “scientific” proof that God did not exist. He paused for a few moments and then accepted that such refutation would not amount to a scientific proof that God does not exist.

I then reminded that right from the moment he sought me out, he had been working on the premise that he would “disprove” the existence of God using “scientific proofs”. After much silence he asked my leave for a few weeks after which he said he would surely come back to me with such arguments.

The young man never came back. I still wait for him. I wait for him in vain because nobody has proved that God does not exist, though plenty of people claim that science has disproved God. The ball still remains in the court of the so-called “rationalist”.

Latest Activity

posted a new blog entry OM BOOKS.
3 years ago
posted a new blog entry OM Books Online.
3 years ago
posted a new blog entry ശൂലമി.
3 years ago


Powered by