Firstly, why did you write this book?

Although there is still a great need for spiritual depth in people's lives, this is hard to realise given that modern science seems to be in opposition to what the Holy Bible tells us about fundamentals such as creation versus divine creation. 'Modern Man' needs a logical argument to support everything he or she accepts, and this can lead to personal conflict in many areas between science and religion. What I aim to do is show there is no conflict and that assumed differences merely result from incorrect and outdated notions. Interpretation of the Bible tends to go unchanged and unchallenged through countless generations. Now is the time to look for its 'hidden secrets' in the light of modern knowledge.

Why is your book called 'God, Science and the Cosmic Jigsaw'?

Because it aims to tackle the perceived enigmas between scientific belief and the Christian belief. I use analogy a lot in the book to help put over what might otherwise be complex topics. The central one is of a scientist and a theologian sitting side-by-side, each doing a crossword puzzle. The thing is that neither has noticed they only have four corner pieces between them: an essential clue they really only have one puzzle between them. If they helped each other they could assemble what I call the 'cosmic jigsaw' by co-operation. The result would be a better understanding of creation that avoided apparent contradictions between their different viewpoints.

My point is that science and religion need not be separated by assumed differences. If I sit at right-angles to you and hold up a coin with the flat side facing me, you only see a rectangular lump of metal, whereas I see the face of the coin and its design. If I then rotate it 90 degrees you see the metal is round and you see the design on it - whereas I then only see the rectangular lump of metal you first saw. What we perceive in life, about anything, is simply dependent upon our current perception and viewpoint. If we become more open that perception can change.

The subtitle of your book is 'Revealing the Bible secrets' that harmonize science and religion… bringing God to Life!' Can you explain what that means?

Believers tend to accept biblical viewpoints that have remained unchanged for centuries. I think it is time we questioned such perception in the light of modern knowledge. After all, if there are strong adherents of two difference scientific arguments, people are prepared to consider both. So why not scientific arguments versus Biblical ones, if the subject matter is the same? There was no understanding of scientific concepts at the time the Bible texts were written, but that does not mean there might not be hidden secrets within them which we might be able to interpret today, as a result of our greater understanding of the world and science. My book attempts to do just that, and to show that the Bible contains important clues that reinforce the findings of science.

Your book proposes a 'Divine Evolution Theory'. Can you briefly explain this?

Wouldn't it be 'divine' if there was a theory that could explain both natural evolution - survival of the fittest, and all that - and divine creation of the human species? Wouldn't that let everyone off the hook? On the face of it, that sounds impossible if the scientist believes we are descended from primates, and the Christian believes we were the divine creation of God. But what I 've dubbed the 'Divine Evolution Theory' proposes that whilst everything is ultimately the product of God's creative consciousness, rather than instantly create what the scientist can clearly see is an ongoing process somewhere in the middle, we should give God the credit of being more subtle than that and taking his time.

The Big Bang and evolution represented a sound process to develop fitting and stable life on our planet, and it was therefore a fitting sequence for God to use. But there are two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 - some might say they are alternative accounts - but if this Word was inspired, how could there be contradictory accounts? That would imply one was wrong. What if, instead, they are complementary and meant to be read, as written, sequentially? Read them in sequence and apart from one editorial error in Genesis 1 - easily explained - this results in a two-phase account. The first phase, in Genesis 1, details evolution: far ahead of Darwin and his supporters. Without divine inspiration, how could such early sources, pre-dating science, have otherwise come up with such a sound account of evolutionary development ranging from dry land, vegetation, plants, trees, water life and birds to mankind?

But suppose the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 merely represent vast period of time during which only evolutionary development took place. Let us assume the term 'days' is merely a figurative way of defining what were then, unimaginably long periods of time. Then, after God's day of rest on the 7th day - really a long period during which nothing but natural evolution took place - Genesis 2 picks up the account of how God fine-tuned his creation by divine intercession. Suppose the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth really means he created a new race of man from the genetic material that had evolved, ie he used it as a genetic blueprint for what Genesis terms the 'sons of God'. Adam and Eve were thus archetypes of a new 'designer-race'. This means we are not directly descended from apes - and Christians can here heave a sigh of relief - but God used sound scientific principles to develop stable life on the planet. Like a cook adding a soupçon of this or that to modify an existing recipe, he fine-tuned mankind. Similarly, he may have made similar fine-adjustment which could explain previously inexplicable step-functions in evolutionary development where science is sometimes stumped for missing evidence.

Genesis 6 tells us that the sons of God took beautiful women from mankind to themselves and that, as a result, giants and men of renown resulted; I'm proposing these were hybrids resulting from interbreeding of two parallel races: an evolutionary race and a divinely created race. God was displeased with this interbreeding, was annoyed that he divinely created such a race of man, and so he almost brought about their entire destruction as a result with the Great Flood. I believe that's a much more sensible interpretation than Erich von Daniken's theory that the sons of God were spacemen. And it even tallies with creation myths from around the world that are more detailed than Genesis.

What was the 'editorial error' you mentioned in Genesis 1 that is 'easily explained'?

The creation sequence in Genesis 1 is perfectly in line with modern scientific understanding apart from the fact that it states that there was night and day on Day 1, even though it is not until Day 4 that, apparently, the sun, moon and stars were created to separate day from night. And yet, we are told, God said "Let there be light" on Day 1. We now know we would have needed our universe, our sun and its planets before anything else could evolve, and it is interesting that both Day 1 and Day 4 mention 'lights in the sky'. I believe that the inspired Word told the authors of Genesis that the sun and stars were created on Day 1, but that in their inherent belief that their own world - the Earth - came before anything else, they insisted that everything else in the 'skies' came about later: at Day 4. The clue to this being an editorial mix-up is in the fact that it gets mentioned on both Day 1 and Day 4. Take all the stuff about the sun and stars away from Day 4 and put it at Day 1, then there is a perfect account of an evolving process as science would have it. How could such an early race of man have understood this sequence - so far ahead of science - without divine inspiration? Correct for this patent error, and the Bible corroborates what science believes, and science supports what the Bible tells us.

So where do you see Heaven falling into this theory?

Modern scientific theory - String Theory - proposes we live in a multi-dimensional universe and the world, as we know it, coexists with other worlds. Some scientists can conceive an infinite number of them, worlds in which every divergent possibility goes on to exist. Personally I don't believe that, for why did God take so much effort to direct our ways if he could merely divert his attention to a way he preferred from these infinite possibilities? But if you allow for the fact that other worlds may penetrate our own, in the same space - in a similar manner to how all the radio waves from different radio and TV channels interpenetrate us - then why not Heaven and an interpenetrating world? When Jesus was asked by his disciples where Heaven was, he replied that it was 'within them': using the present tense! I think he said this, tongue-in-cheek, knowing his questioners could never have understood the reality of multiple dimensions. Interestingly, spiritualists talk about seven realms of existence beyond our own. That would not be contrary to this theory.

And where do you stand on eternal life?

A firm believer! My book seeks to prove why we should accept that Jesus was a unique creation in this world and that he truly brought us the word of God on these matters. He assured us of eternal life if we believed in Him. But I also spend some time justifying how mind and brain are two very different things and that, since mind lies beyond physical realms, there is no reason to suppose it ceases to exist when our physical body dies. Indeed, out-of-body experiences prove that mind and body are separate entities. As do mutual dreams.

When our body dies, our continuing consciousness still expects us to have a body: so it will have. If we expect to hang around earth, we probably will, as a ghost. But if we expect Heaven, we may experience that, instead, if we have been 'granted' eternal life by a belief in the sacrifice of Jesus to make this possible. That, after all, is the heart of the Christian faith.

What are mutual dreams?

These are dreams shared by more than one person. I had one with my wife, and it was further proof to me that since brains cannot overlap, the mind must be a separate entity. Our dreams are mind-based. I believe the brain is merely a physical mirror of our mind, and that is why death of the body, and brain, need not mean the end of our conscious existence in the form of a soul and mind.

So when do we get to Heaven? After Judgement Day?

Jesus told the sympathetic thief on the cross next to him he would immediately be in Paradise with him. Jesus told his disciples there were 'many mansions' in his father's house, prepared for them. Those already saved by their belief in Jesus can go there immediately after death. Jesus assured us that belief in his sacrifice for our sins absolves us of them, so judgement does not come into it for such souls. As a result, their eternal life can begin immediately upon death. Others may have to await Judgement Day, for they have not taken up the passport offered them by Jesus. Their fate, therefore, is less predictable! If Heaven is a true Paradise, however, we can be fairly confident it will not be hugely different to earth in appearance, for otherwise our souls would go into a state of shock - and that could hardly be described as 'Paradise', or a very sound process for God to have thought up!

What would you say to those who cannot accept that a loving God can allow such terrible disasters to happen in the world?

God created a world in which the individual soul can have a direct impact upon his or her own fate - although he gives us guidance, through the Bible, on how to best shape that. But his creation incorporates chance - that, after all, is the essence of natural evolution - so there is the chance for bad and good effects. Mankind can influence that, but God sees things in a much less parochial perspective. He sees life beyond physical life on this planet, so death need not be a full-stop for a human-being: it need only be a semicolon! Death has no sting to the person who moves on to a more perfect life in Heaven. A disaster on earth may merely be a fast-track ticket for someone destined for Heaven. God does not seek to control the ebb and fall of the tides of life: just the laws of Nature and Science that form the boundaries for his magnificent experiment in multidimensional space and time.

How did you come about your theories?

It all started about 25 years ago! I was researching a book that was intended to look for the links between parallel theories such as evolution and divine creation, and to explain things such as paranormal phenomena. At the time I was an agnostic. I had a scientific and technological background and I needed everything to add up logically. After a lot of false starts, and a lot of periods during which the whole project was just shelved, I finally came up with this work. The main difference is that this is entirely God-centred whereas the original project was more open-ended. I believe the final, more closely-coupled end-product, is much more helpful to those who would like to find a reason to believe in God… and that became my new aim in this work.

What else does your book cover?

The meaning of life. The meaning in life. So much more! It is about God's creation and God's mind. It is about the enigmas that have driven a wedge between science and religion, between logical acceptance and blind faith, and even between different religions. It is about faith and hope, about healing and the way to ensure eternal life. It is impossible to tell you much more in a short interview. Why not just read the book?