The Miracle of Israel - A Scientific Theory

..

HAVE SCIENTISTS PROVEN THAT GOD IS PROTECTING ISRAEL?

written by Phil Schneider

Israel Unwired

April 11, 2019 

Nuclear physicist, Gerald Schroeder, a known researcher in the past for The Weizmann Institute and Hebrew University, simply cannot be accused of unscientific thinking. When observing statistics that don’t seem all too logical, most of Schroeder’s colleagues admit that there was “luck” involved.

Impossible Stats?

The existence of the State of Israel, the fact that there were so few casualties from the Scud missiles shot down on Israel during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, all appear, on the surface, to be a stroke of luck. Schroeder, however, refuses to call it “luck.” Luck is just not a scientifically sound term. For nuclear physicists like Schroeder, the real answer is that God is protecting His people.

Dr. Schroeder makes the point that many miracles happen in what seems like a very natural manner. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 was an odd war. The State of Israel endured a massive bombing of an enormously powerful missile – the Scud missile – on heavily populated areas in Israel – Tel-Aviv and its surroundings. Not one person was killed from these bombings, though there were wounded. One man experienced a heart attack, and it is unclear if this was connected to the bombing.

One does not need to be a brilliant professor in order to reach the conclusions of Dr. Schroeder. But, it is most reassuring when someone of his stature makes it clear that the rational explanations of the occurrences in the modern State of Israel simply don’t hold water. We don’t need to be scared of the repercussions of accepting God’s involvement in this world. If it is logical to assume that there is a hand of God in charge of this world, and illogical to assume otherwise, then let’s accept that the creation and existence of the State of Israel is one big miracle.

The fact that Israel survived at least 4 wars by much larger countries on three sides is another clue to the Hand of God being with them. Arabs and Muslims don't like it, but it has been clear for many years that God is not with them, but with the Jews, as He promised He would be.

‘Are We Alone in the Universe?’ Churchill’s Lost Essay on Alien Life Uncovered

This is a pretty courageous thing for a world leader to write at a time

when talk of extraterrestrial life would bring much mirth and criticism.

But then, Churchill was never afraid of controversy.

Winston Churchill © Pigiste / AFP

A newly discovered piece written by Winston Churchill, as the world stood on the brink of World War II, reveals the former British Prime Minister turned his thoughts to the possibility of alien life.

The eleven-page essay entitled ‘Are we alone in the universe’ was drafted on the eve of World War II in 1939 and updated in the '50s but remained undiscovered in the US National Churchill Museum archives until recently.

Britain's wartime leader, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 and was also a proponent of science, reflected in the article on the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, with unusual foresight.

He discussed the possible existence of exoplanets decades before they were discovered, and predicted humans would travel to the moon and Mars.

The timely, rediscovered article, which is believed to have been intended for publication in London's News of the World, was found by Timothy Riley, Director of the US National Churchill Museum and shared with astrophysicist Mario Livio for expert analysis.

“At a time when a number of today's politicians shun science, I find it moving to recall a leader who engaged with it so profoundly,” Livio wrote in the journal Nature, describing Churchill’s reasoning as nuanced and comparable with modern arguments in astrobiology.

Churchill’s open-minded theories on the search for extraterrestrial life pre-empted later astronomical discoveries including habitable zones and exoplanets.

“I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time,” Churchill wrote in the piece.

Churchill thought in-depth about ‘habitable zones’ before it became a recognizable term, musing that life could only survive “between a few degrees of frost and the boiling point of water.”

He also considered the ability of a planet to retain its atmosphere, explaining that the hotter a gas is, the faster its molecules are moving and the more easily they can escape.

Taking these factors into account, the British statesman concluded that Mars and Venus are the only places in the Solar System other than Earth that could harbor life.

“One day, possibly even in the not very distant future, it may be possible to travel to the moon, or even to Venus or Mars,” he wrote.

It’s interesting to bear in mind that Churchill began the essay shortly after Orson Welles dramatization of HG Wells' The War of the Worlds was broadcast on US radio prompting ‘Mars fever’ in the media.

Churchill also weighed up the idea that other stars host planets reasoning “the sun is merely one star in our galaxy, which contains several thousand millions of others”. He considered a now ruled out theory put forward by astrophysicist James Jeans in 1917 that planets are formed from the gas that is torn off a star when another star passes close to it.

“But this speculation depends upon the hypothesis that planets were formed in this way. Perhaps they were not. We know there are millions of double stars, and if they could be formed, why not planetary systems?”

“I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets.”

He concluded a large number of extrasolar planets “will be the right size to keep on their surface water and possibly an atmosphere of some sort” and some will be “at the proper distance from their parent sun to maintain a suitable temperature,” decades before thousands of exoplanets were discovered in the 1990s.

“With hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands of millions of Suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible,” Churchill finishes the essay.

Livio noted that Churchill contemplated scientific questions in the context of human values and that his essay was a testament to the importance he put on science and technology for societal development.

Churchill entered Parliament as an MP in 1901

Has Science Discovered God?

Einstein didn’t believe it was possible.

Stephen Hawking said it might be the 

greatest scientific discovery of all time.

What discovery has baffled the greatest scientific minds of the past century, and why has it caused them to rethink the origin of our universe? New, more powerful, telescopes have revealed mysteries about our universe that have raised new questions about the origin of life.

Has science discovered God?

But wait a minute! Hasn’t science proven we don’t need God to explain the universe? Lightning, earthquakes and even babies used to be explained as acts of God. But now we know better. What is it about this discovery that is so fundamentally different, and why has it stunned the scientific world?

This discovery and what molecular biologists have learned about the sophisticated coding within DNA have many scientists now admitting that the universe appears to be part of a grand design.

One cosmologist put it this way: “Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Surprisingly, many scientists who are talking about God have no religious belief whatsoever.

So, what are these stunning discoveries that have scientists suddenly speaking of God? Three revolutionary discoveries from the fields of astronomy and molecular biology stand out:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence

The statements leading scientists have made about these discoveries may shock you. Let’s take a look.

One-Time Beginning

Since the dawn of civilization man has gazed in awe at the stars, wondering what they are and how they got there. Although on a clear night the unaided human eye can see about 6,000 stars, Hubble and other powerful telescopes indicate there are trillions of them clustered in over 100 billion galaxies. Our sun is like one grain of sand amidst the world’s beaches.


Pictures from the Hubble telescope

However, prior to the 20th century, the majority of scientists believed our own Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe, and that only about 100 million stars existed.

Most scientists believed that our universe never had a beginning. They believed mass, space and energy had always existed.

But in the early 20th century, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding. Rewinding the process mathematically, he calculated that everything in the universe, including matter, energy, space and even time itself, actually had a beginning.

Shockwaves rang loudly throughout the scientific community. Many scientists, including Einstein, reacted negatively. In what Einstein later called “the biggest blunder of my life,” he fudged the equations to avoid the implication of a beginning.

Perhaps the most vocal adversary of a beginning to the universe was British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who sarcastically nicknamed the creation event a “big bang.” He stubbornly held to his steady state theory that the universe has always existed. So did Einstein and other scientists until the evidence for a beginning became overwhelming. The “elephant in the room” implication of a beginning is that something or Someone beyond scientific investigation must have started it all.

Finally, in 1992, COBE satellite experiments proved that the universe really did have a one-time beginning in an incredible flash of light and energy. Although some scientists called it the moment of creation, most preferred referring to it as the “big bang.”

Astronomer Robert Jastrow tries to help us imagine how it all began. “The picture suggests the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb. The instant in which the cosmic bomb exploded marked the birth of the Universe.”


Everything from Nothing

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator. “British theorist, Edward Milne, wrote a mathematical treatise on relativity which concluded by saying,

‘As to the first cause of the Universe, in the context of expansion, 

that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.’” 

Another British scientist, Edmund Whittaker attributed the beginning of our universe to 

“Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.” 

Many scientists were struck by the parallel of a one-time creation event from nothing with the biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1. Prior to this discovery, many scientists regarded the biblical account of creation from nothing as unscientific.

Although he called himself an agnostic, Jastrow was compelled by the evidence to admit,

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to

 a biblical view of the origin of the world.” 

Another agnostic, George Smoot, the Nobel Prize winning scientist in charge of the COBE experiment, also admits to the parallel.

“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event 

and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

Scientists who used to scoff at the Bible as a book of fairy tales, are now admitting that the biblical concept of creation from nothing has been right all along.



Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its origins, soon realized that a chance cosmic explosion could never bring about life any more than a nuclear bomb would—unless it was precisely engineered to do so. And that meant a designer must have planned it. They began using words like, “Super-intellect,” “Creator,” and even “Supreme Being” to describe this designer. Let’s look at why.


Finely-Tuned for Life

Physicists calculated that for life to exist, gravity and the other forces of nature needed to be just right or our universe couldn’t exist. Had the expansion rate been slightly weaker, gravity would have pulled all matter back into a “big crunch.”

We’re not talking about merely a one or two percent reduction in the universe’s expansion rate. Stephen Hawking writes, 

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller 

by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, 

the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” 

On the flip side, if the expansion rate had been a mere fraction greater than it was, galaxies, stars and planets could never have formed, and we wouldn’t be here.

And for life to exist, the conditions in our solar system and planet also need to be just right. For example, we all realize that without an atmosphere of oxygen, none of us would be able to breathe. And without oxygen, water couldn’t exist. Without water there would be no rainfall for our crops. Other elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus are also essential for life.



But that alone is not all that is needed for life to exist. The size, temperature, relative proximity, and chemical makeup of our planet, sun, and moon also need to be just right. And there are dozens of other conditions that needed to be exquisitely fine-tuned or we wouldn’t be here to think about it.

Scientists who believe in God may have expected such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics were unable to explain the remarkable “coincidences.” Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, an agnostic, writes, 

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been 

very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Accident or Miracle?

But couldn’t this fine-tuning be attributed to chance? After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack. And, against heavy odds, lotteries are eventually won by someone. So, what are the odds against human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history?

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. It would be far easier for a blind-folded person—in one try— to discover one specially marked grain of sand out of all the beaches of the world.

Another example of how unlikely it would be for a random big bang to produce life is one person winning over a thousand consecutive mega-million dollar lotteries after purchasing only a single ticket for each.

What would be your reaction to such news? Impossible—unless it was fixed by someone behind the scenes, which is what everyone would think. And that is what many scientists are concluding—Someone behind the scenes designed and created the universe.

This new understanding of how miraculous human life is in our universe led the agnostic astronomer George Greenstein to ask,

“Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon

the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

However, as an agnostic, Greenstein maintains his faith in science, rather than a Creator, to ultimately explain our origins.

Jastrow explains why some scientists are reluctant to accept a transcendent Creator,

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

It is understandable why scientists like Greenstein and Hawking seek other explanations rather than attribute our finely-tuned universe to a Creator. Hawking speculates that other unseen (and unprovable) universes may exist, increasing the odds that one of them (ours) is perfectly fine-tuned for life. However, since his proposal is speculative, and outside of verification, it can hardly be called “scientific.” Although he is also an agnostic, British astrophysicist Paul Davies dismisses Hawking’s idea as too speculative. He writes,

“Such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” 

Although Hawking continues leading the charge to explore purely scientific explanations for our origins, other scientists, including many agnostics, have acknowledged what appears to be overwhelming evidence for a Creator. Hoyle wrote,

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect 

has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, 

and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Although Einstein wasn’t religious, and didn’t believe in a personal God, he called the genius behind the universe 

“an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic 

thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”

Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who spent much of his life writing and debating against God, was most perplexed by the fact that life couldn’t exist if things were different by just “one degree or one hair.” 

Davies acknowledges,

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. 

It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….

 The impression of design is overwhelming. 

DNA: The Language of Life

Astronomy is not the only area where science has seen evidence for design. Molecular biologists have discovered intricately complex design in the microscopic world of DNA. In the past century, scientists learned that a tiny molecule called DNA is the “brains” behind each cell in our bodies as well as every other living thing. Yet the more they discover about DNA, the more amazed they are at the brilliance behind it.



Scientists who believe the material world is all that exists (materialists), like Richard Dawkins, argue DNA evolved by natural selection without a Creator. Yet even most ardent evolutionists admit that the origin of DNA’s intricate complexity is unexplainable.

DNA’s intricate complexity caused its co-discoverer, Francis Crick, to believe that it could never have originated on earth naturally. Crick, an evolutionist who believed life is too complex to have originated on earth, and must have come from outer space, wrote,

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.

The coding behind DNA reveals such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. A mere pinhead of DNA contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that the software of DNA is 

“far, far more complex than any software we have ever developed.”

Dawkins and other materialists believe that all this complexity originated through natural selection. Yet, as Crick remarked, natural selection could never have produced the first molecule. Many scientists believe that the coding within the DNA molecule points to an intelligence far exceeding what could have occurred by natural causes.

In the early 21st century, leading atheist Antony Flew’s atheism came to an abrupt end when he studied the intelligence behind DNA. Flew explains what changed his opinion.

What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been 

involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. 

The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me 

like the work of intelligence…. It now seems to me that the finding 

of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials

 for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Although Flew was not a Christian, he admitted that the “software” behind DNA is far too complex to have originated without a “designer.” The discovery of the incredible intelligence behind DNA has, in this former leading atheist’s words, “provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”



Fingerprints of a Creator

Are scientists now convinced that a Creator has left his “fingerprints” on the universe?

Although many scientists are still bent on squeezing God out of the universe, most recognize the religious implications of these new discoveries. In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, who doesn’t believe in a personal God, attempts to explain why the universe doesn’t need God. Yet when faced with the evidence, even Hawking, has also admitted, 

“There must be religious overtones. 

But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”

As an agnostic, Jastrow had no Christian agenda behind his conclusions. However, he freely acknowledges the compelling case for a Creator. Jastrow writes of the shock and despair experienced by scientists who thought they had squeezed God out of their world.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, 

the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;

 he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, 

he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. 

A Personal Creator?

If there is a superintelligent Creator, the question arises, what is he like? Is he just some Force like in Star Wars, or is he a personal Being like us? Since we are personal and relational beings, wouldn’t the one who created us also be personal and relational?

Many scientists like Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believe that these new discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God. He writes, 

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, 

one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. 

I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” 

If God is personal and since he has given us the ability to communicate, 

wouldn’t we expect him to communicate with us and let us know why we are here?

What kind of God Who created humans with the ability to communicate with each other at a very high level, would not have the ability to communicate with them Himself? 

As we have seen, science is unable to answer questions about God and the purpose for life. However, since the Bible was right about creation from nothing, might it also be trustworthy regarding God, life and purpose?

Two thousand years ago a man set foot on our planet who claimed to have the answer to life. Although his time on earth was brief, his impact changed the world, and is still felt today. His name is Jesus Christ.

The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ tell us that he continually demonstrated creative power over nature’s laws. They tell us he was wise, humble and compassionate. He healed the lame, deaf and blind. He stopped raging storms instantly, created food for the hungry on the spot, turned water into wine at a wedding, and even raised the dead. And they claimed after his brutal execution, he rose from the dead.

They also tell us that Jesus Christ is the one who flung the stars into space, fine-tuned our universe and created DNA. Could he be the one of whom Einstein unknowingly referred to as the “superintelligence” behind the universe? Could Jesus Christ be the one of whom Hoyle unknowingly referred to as having

“monkeyed with physics, chemistry and biology?”

Has the mystery of who was behind the big bang and the intelligence of DNA been revealed in the following account from the New Testament?

Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. 

He existed before creation began, for it was through him that everything was made, 

whether spiritual or material, seen or unseen. Through him, and for him, 

also, were created power and dominion, ownership and authority. 

In fact, every single thing was created through, and for him….

Life from nothing began through him, and life from the dead began through him, 

and he is, therefore, justly called the Lord of all. 

Jesus spoke with authority about God’s love for us and the reason he created us. He said he has a plan for our lives, and that plan centers on a relationship with himself. But for that relationship to be possible, Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. And it was necessary for him to rise from the dead so that we too could have life after death.

If Jesus was the Creator, he certainly would have the power over life and death. And those closest to him claim they saw him alive after he died and was buried for three days.

Scientist Says He Found Definitive Proof That God Exists

One of the most respected scientists of today says he has found evidence of the action of a force "that governs everything."

The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world.

To come to his conclusions, the physicist made ​​use of what he calls "primitive semi – radius tachyons".

Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe.

After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

It would seem that to Michio, God is still a concept yet to be understood. Hopefully, he will come to know the God of the Bible as a personal God, a triune person wanting an intimate relationship with us.

Michio Kaku (/ˈmiːtʃioʊ ˈkɑːkuː/; born January 24, 1947) is an American futurist, theoretical physicist and popularizer of science. Kaku is a professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College of New York. He has written several books about physics and related topics, has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film, and writes online blogs and articles. He has written three New York Times best sellers: Physics of the Impossible (2008), Physics of the Future (2011), and The Future of the Mind (2014). Kaku has hosted several TV specials for the BBC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Science Channel. - Wikipedia

Does The Discovery of Earth 2.0 Mark The End of Religion?

Just a day after the discovery of Earth 2.0, a 'scientist' is already anticipating the death of religion. Good grief!

by Benjamin L. Corey 
Patheos Press

Image of Kepler-452b, via NASA

Yesterday NASA made the announcement that they finally discovered something many have pondered: the existence of an Earth-like planet. The above illustration shows Kepler 452b, a planet somewhat larger than Earth but within the habitable zone of its star. Its year is almost identical to that of our own planet, and the amount of energy received from its sun is near identical as well– meaning if there’s life out there similar to our own, this is the kind of place where it’s happening. This discovery tells us two things: (a) Earth-like planets that host all the building blocks for life are probably relatively common in the universe, and (b) life may very well be relatively common in the universe also.

Umm, couldn't that have been assumed before the discovery of Kepler-452b? There are an almost infinite number of stars in the sky, there must be an almost infinite number of planets as well. It only makes sense. The only real question is whether their numbers are 'almost' infinite or 'totally' infinite. Why would God create such an incredibly vast universe and leave it empty of life?

Discoveries like this are incredibly exciting, but are they bad news for God? Do they spell the end of religion? That’s precisely what scientist Jeff Schweitzer is arguing. In fact, he seems to think the discovery of extraterrestrial life would single-handedly strike down some of the world’s major religions if they were not re-written to accommodate such a discovery:

 “I would like here to preempt what will certainly be a re-write of history on the part of the world’s major religions. I predict with great confidence that all will come out and say such a discovery is completely consistent with religious teachings. My goal here is to declare this as nonsense before it happens.”

How does Schweitzer prove that extraterrestrial life is inconsistent with religion? Well, he goes straight to the Hebrew book of Genesis:

“Let us be clear that the Bible is unambiguous about creation: the earth is the center of the universe, only humans were made in the image of god, and all life was created in six days. All life in all the heavens. In six days. So when we discover that life exists or existed elsewhere in our solar system or on a planet orbiting another star in the Milky Way, or in a planetary system in another galaxy, we will see a huge effort to square that circle with amazing twists of logic and contorted justifications. But do not buy the inevitable historical edits: life on another planet is completely incompatible with religious tradition. Any other conclusion is nothing but ex-post facto rationalization to preserve the myth…”

Quoting Genesis 1:1 he notes,
“Nothing in that mentions alien worlds, which of course the ancients knew nothing about. Man was told to rule over the fish on the earth, not on other planets. But god would have known of these alien worlds, so it is curious he did not instruct the authors to include the language.”

He goes onto argue that the omission of alien life would require anyone without a closed mind to basically wash their hands of the Bible:

“None of the 66 books of the bible [sic] make any reference to life other than that created by god here on earth in that six-day period. If we discover life elsewhere, one must admit that is an oversight. So much so in fact that such a discovery must to all but the most closed minds call into question the entire story of creation, and anything that follows from that story. How could a convincing story of life’s creation leave out life? Even if the story is meant to be allegorical, the omission of life elsewhere makes no sense.”

While Schweitzer begins the piece by saying alien life would be a problem for religion in general, his entire argument is based upon the creation account in Genesis, so what he’s really saying is it is a problem for the three religions who worship the God of Abraham and share that creation account (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But is he right?

No, he’s not. The discovery of alien life will not be the end of any of the three Abrahamic faiths, nor will it require all but the closed-minded to leave.

If I understand his arguments, it seems he’s arguing the following: if alien life exists but is not mentioned in the creation poem, such a creation account is either (a) factually wrong or (b) contains an omission which would prove it were not inspired by God.

The irony of the argument brings up an important point that I’ve seen not infrequently: some atheists and fundamentalists often insist on reading the Bible the same way, yet both sides think the other is stupid for doing so. And this is precisely what Schweitzer is doing: he’s taking a fundamentalist view of Genesis and arguing that it would all fall apart with the scientific discovery of extraterrestrial life. (In fact, he’s actually going one step beyond fundamentalism and arguing that if the creation account omits any information, it is wrong.)

In praxis it looks like this:
Fundamentalist: This is what the text says. If it did not happen exactly the way it is recorded, it is not true. Therefore, it must be true.
Atheist: This is what the text says. If it did not happen exactly the way it is recorded, it is not true. Therefore, you’d have to be closed-minded to believe it.

It’s the same hermeneutical approach on both sides. It imports the same modern assumptions on how we tell history versus how ancients told stories, and assumes being “inspired by God” means the text must answer modern questions instead of ancient ones. Whether approaching it from the atheist side or that of the fundamentalist, it’s a rather unenlightening way to approach these ancient stories.

Most Evangelical Christians believe that Christ is returning for the Millennial Reign, soon. Events happening around the world in the past 25 years powerfully strengthen that belief. If, as so many of us believe, He returns soon, it is likely to be before intelligent life is discovered anywhere else in the universe. His presence will then supersede Scripture. Consequently, it would be completely unnecessary to include such a topic as extra-terrestrial life in Scripture because no-one would experience it during the period of the greatest influence of Scripture.

Imagine if God had included everything He created in the Creation account; it would be so large, I doubt any of us would live long enough to be able to read it.

C.S. Lewis once said, rather sarcastically, "if you don't know how to read grown-up books, then you shouldn't comment on them".

Our religion only falls apart if you hold Schweitzer’s assumptions: the creation account is a true account of creation and if something is omitted, the account is wrong. I don’t know many who actually hold to this position, so I would imagine the collapse of religion predicted would be relatively small.

In the end, I would be thrilled if they discover (as I already anticipate is true) that life is actually common in the universe. This will not shake my faith at all. This will not require me to become closed-minded and abandon the entire Christian narrative.

Instead, it would invite me to begin asking bigger questions about God and bigger questions about creation.

And as someone who loves asking questions about God, I welcome the opportunity.