This same scientist, in an obvious attempt to discuss God, but somehow remain “scientific,” invented the term “G.O.D.” which he used to suggest a Guiding, Organizing, Designing process. His thinking was clearly that characterizing God in this way would make Creator more “palatable” to the overwhelmingly atheist scientific community. What does Creator think of this descriptive construct? Helpful or harmful? What does Creator think of being labeled “a process?”

We take no offense at being fit into a rather narrow set of criteria, considering the vastness of our energy and its reach, but we regard this exercise as being more on track than not because it reflects the reality and, as supported by science, that the universe indeed has a kind of organization and, as such, would have to have been intentional and implemented through a kind of orchestration, the application of energy in some fashion to bring things about in their shape and form, and energetic makeup, and properties. And, in fact, with the complexity of many, many things that need to work together and are linked together directly and observably, this overwhelmingly suggests there was a deliberate design behind it all, that creation was not a random process that led to order and precision of many elaborate material expressions, both non-living and living, that integrate together in wonderful ways to create a community of things interacting in a purposeful way. This is wildly and dramatically at the opposite end of the spectrum from the random chaos that was presumed to exist originally, in the absence of some organizing principle. Science presumes to do this through the theory of evolution, but that is not a scientific conclusion but a misperception by the public that the theory of evolution explains creation. The true scientists do not make that claim, knowing full well that the process of natural selection can only begin to make assumptions about how things might change slowly over time but not how they came into existence in the first place. This at once shows that science is woefully inadequate to explain creation, and its consequences being the fact that there is a vast universe in existence that can be observed and probed. Even though most is at a distance from the human reach currently, it is nonetheless real and can be studied. So we see this as a logical approach to create a scientific framework to explain the Deity and the existence of creation. But once again, it is a very, very basic framework indeed, and does not begin to address the wondrousness and miraculous nature of everything you see around you, and you included. What has not filtered down, to even the scientific community as a whole, is that scientific advancement, and the research process being applied to such questions, has developed over time an overwhelming body of evidence that the theory of evolution cannot explain the existence of everything because the makeup of everything in existence is far too complex, intricate, and purposeful through wondrous mechanisms that could not occur and be produced through randomness, even though the universe seemingly has existed for a large span of time, from human perspective. But given the size of the problem represented by creation, there was still not enough time for something to happen through chance, given the very low probability that a high degree of order would somehow come together on its own, when science itself has proven in many, many ways that the energies of the universe, left on their own, lead to disorder and dissolution and not further refinement to make something that is ever greater and more awesome in its nature.