And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4)

We can see here that God is making a statement, followed by that statement being executed: "Let there be light" is directly followed by and there was light.

Who is God speaking to here? And why is it executed so immediately?

The use of the word "said" prior to His statement is allegorical. The word "said" is being translated from the Hebrew word אמר ('amar), which means, according to the lexicon, "to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend."

Since there is no audience mentioned other than the reader, we can know that this word "said" is speaking more of intention ("to intend") rather than speaking. In other words, God is not making a big speech to anyone here.

Rather, God is speaking through His activities. He is speaking His intent via His design of the physical universe.

Remember that we are talking about the Supreme Being, Who originates from the spiritual dimension - a dimension where time does not exist - creating the physical universe, and setting in motion what we see around us. Notice that God simply had to command light. This indicates that light - which is energy - originates from God.

Light emanates from God. This is confirmed by numerous scriptural passages. Therefore, when God was creating the physical universe, He simply endowed it with His light.

'God saw that the light was good' indicates His approval. He is commanding the creation of the physical universe, and then He is approving it.

What does it mean that He has separated the darkness from the light? This can only mean that He put in place the aspect of periodicity, which means rotation and the element of time. Separating light from the darkness requires that one segment or period has light while another segment or period has darkness. This means to alternate light with darkness, in effect putting in place the effect of time and rotation.

If we look around us, everything is rotating. We see spiraling galaxies, rotating solar systems and planets that revolve. We also find revolution among atoms and molecules, as electrons revolve around nuclei. These are all aspects of periodicity, and we measure time by these rotations. We also see that our very lives are modeled around periodicity and time. We have day and night, winter and summer, hot and cold and so on. The universe is in balance, based upon periodicity - and time.

This periodicity is also expressed by the yin and yang of ancient Chinese thought. The concept is that the universe is completely balanced between the yin and the yang. This balance, of course, requires periodicity and the aspect of time.

Because God emanates light, He could endow the physical universe with light. And because He is complete, He contains both the yin and the yang. This is because God is the Cause of existence.

The laws of the physical universe indicate that everything has a cause and a source. As we investigate the universe we find that every event has a cause. This is the basis of science: To determine the cause for things. And the only reason there are scientists is because the study of finding a cause for so many things has become worthwhile.

Consider, on the other hand, a chaotic universe where things simply happened without cause. Would such a universe prompt us to employ scientists to find the causes of events? Certainly not. We would consistently find that they were wrong about each of their studies, and conclude that it is a waste of time to employ them to study anything. A chaotic world without cause and effect would simply be a waste of time to study.

A chaotic world where things simply happen without cause would also lead to an existence without any consistency. Yet today, many scientists like to propose that humans and life itself was an accidental event. If it is an accidental event there is no purpose for existence. We are simply the result of a freak accident of nature. Could this be true?

If we look around us, we see organization. We see cause and effect. Again, this is why we value scientists. Because they can study an event for awhile, and at some point see there was a previous event connected with a current event - in a predictable way. Connecting events in a predictable way allows us to understand the causes of particular events. This allows us to learn.

In other words, true scientists help us understand consistency among causes and effects. They see that a particular event is consistently caused by something else. Furthermore, if an event is somehow altered, they can help find that other effect that interceded and altered the event. These understandings have provided us with a fundamental axiom of the scientific method: Every effect has an antecedent cause.

Therefore, using science's own fundamental axiom, we have proved that the physical world cannot be chaotic. Since every effect is preceded by a cause, this means there is consistency. Since there is consistency, the universe is not chaotic.

Actually, the only arena that modern scientists propose pure chaos theory is when they speculate about creation. They propose that the world was an accident simply because they do not want to accept a cause. They refuse to accept that - even though every other event we observe in the physical universe consistently has a cause - the creation somehow does not. This is simply an illogical assumption. It is also unscientific.

The problem with modern science today is that the scientific community - like any other community dictated by peer-pressure - has a problem with accepting information from a higher source. Scientists today want to believe that if they do not observe something directly, it cannot exist. This is called empiricism, and it is the third fundamental axiom of the scientific method. It states that every conclusion must be based upon observation.

But as we look back even over the past few hundred years of science, we can see this notion is deeply flawed. For example, only a few hundred years ago, scientists were not aware of bacteria. They had no idea - until Anton van Leeuwenhoek looked through his microscope and saw what he called "animalcules," which were, of course, microorganisms. Prior to this, there were a few theories of microorganisms, but most of these were heavily criticized, because the other scientists hadn't seen them with their own eyes.

This type of error has continued in science through today. As we are able to peer at smaller elements of nature - or the universe at greater distances - we continue to make the same mistakes due to the faults of our senses. Our senses simply do not have the ability to observe everything. We continue to guess about the things we cannot observe right now, and then once we develop the ability to observe them, we discover our error.

Therefore, since our senses and their extensions are flawed, then a scientific axiom that says that something cannot be true unless it is observed by our senses or their extensions is also flawed.

Where does this leave science? First, modern scientists must realize that our senses and their extensions - be they microscopes, telescopes or space stations - are limited, and prone to error due to their limitations. Since they are prone to error, it is unscientific to completely rely upon them.

So where or what does science rely upon for those elements that cannot be observed directly?

We can assess logically that since everything we observe has an antecedent cause, and the universe, filled with not only matter, but light, energy and life, must also have a Cause. Furthermore, that Cause must have the potential for what exists. In other words, that Cause must contain light and energy, and must contain life.

What are we talking about then? We are talking about a living being. If something contains life, it means that it is alive. This logically can only mean that the Cause of the physical universe is a Living Being. We are describing, of course, God.

Modern scientists must put away the notion that understanding the universe was created by God is unscientific. It is actually perfectly scientific.

Yes, it is true that most modern scientists have not observed God directly. However, modern scientists also have not observed a black hole directly, yet most modern scientists accept the existence of black holes.