Real Science

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

There has been an ongoing debate about the objectivity and credentials of “science” subtended to the debate over creation vs evolution. For over a hundred years, and especially since the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in 1925, there has been a silent, mostly unspoken assumption that one must choose sides. One must either come down on the side of science or on the side of religion. But more recently this has been exposed as a false dichotomy.

In recent years each side of the debate has seemed to approach the topic of evolution, and of the origins of man and the universe, with a sense of religious fervor. In today’s society it could be seen as the battle of the pulpit vs the lectern. In conservative, Bible trusting congregations, the faithful are encouraged to trust the Bible as the Word of God and to view History, the world, and human nature through the lens of scripture. In the secular universities, our youth are told there is no God, the Bible is a myth, and both Life and the Universe originated out of nothing, for no particular reason at all.

Each side seeks to convert others to their point of view, and in recent years, it would seem that the secular view is “winning” the debate, as tens of millions of youth leave the nest, go to universities, and are taught the “truth” of the scientific method, and lectured on the many supposed contradictions of the Bible. After a few years of exposure to the secular worldview, accompanied by a great deal of encouragement to shed the encumbrances of religion and the Ten Commandments, they graduate to freely express their lives and especially their sexuality as they choose.

In a sense it became a great social experiment, starting with the war protests and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and progressing to the free availability of abortion, coed dorms at universities, rampant alcohol and mood altering chemical use, and the acceptance of the secular worldview as supreme on essentially all the major campuses and most of the communities of our country. Most will now admit that the experiment has had enormous unanticipated social implications. There has been an epidemic of depression and mental health problems. There has been a breakup of the family. There has been an increasing disrespect for law, and for legal authority. There has been a massive, deadly epidemic of substance abuse, killing tens of millions and leaving entire generations of children fatherless or motherless.

But what if the entire debate, the whole experiment, was based on false premises? What if our understanding of what is science, and what is religion, is fundamentally flawed? What if instead of freeing our children from the encumbrances of religion, we have merely substituted one religion for another? What if at the same time, instead of teaching the benefits of the scientific method, we have inadvertently advanced and propagated the religion of scientism? (See previous post on Scientism)

James 1:27 states, “Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (ASV) Jesus said “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (NIV) This was the religion taught in our churches and universities prior to the secular revolution. But the religion now taught in schools is secular humanism, the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self fulfillment without the need for any belief in God. Abortion in this worldview is fine. Drugs? Why not? Homosexuality, polygamy, or pedophilia? Sure. Just don’t dispute global warming and you can do whatever else you choose.

But if real religion has been replaced with scientism and secular humanism, what has replaced real science? I believe it is accurate to state, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” But this is not at all what is practiced in our institutions of higher learning. What has replaced real science? The answer is, again, scientism and secular humanism. The wild speculations of Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, and Marx. One may advance any theory whatever about the origin of comets, or life, or the moon. One may believe any incredible explanation for the impossibility of evolution. One may postulate any variation of the big bang and explain its deficiencies with any form of wild hypothesis. But you must not under any circumstances advance a theory that involves God, or Creation. This is madness, This is academic and political suicide.

If you agree, please feel free to share.

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Albert Einstein

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

(For more on similar topics see prior blog on “Science vs Scientism” and “Scoffers”)

Pluto and The Mickey Mouse Astronomers

animation cartoon cartoon character disney
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.com

Atheist and secular astronomers have taught for decades that our solar system is billions of years old. Most secular astronomers currently believe it is 4.6 billion years old. Yet evidence continues to come in from space probes, space telescopes, and astronomy that may disprove such an old age for the solar system.

Starting at the center, we have two immediate problems. First the sun is spinning much too slowly for the solar system to have formed according to astronomers, and second, there has long been known a “faint young sun paradox.” This means that at the time that evolutionists say the earth was a tropical greenhouse packed with lush vegetation and dinosaurs, astrophysicists say the sun was much cooler and the earth would have been an ice ball incapable of sustaining life. Wikipedia explains:

The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth’s history, and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.(1)

In addition, there is a “warm planet paradox” in which NASA has found that several planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune) emit more radiation than they receive from the sun. This should not be possible after billions of years. In addition, several planets also have magnetic fields and volcanoes which should have long been extinct if they were indeed billions of years old. Various theories have been proposed for how this might happen, but none make nearly as much sense as a young Solar System. In point of fact, no computer program has ever been devised to show how these large planets could have even formed so far from the sun in less than 10 billion years.

Then consider that astronomers cannot explain why we still have comets. They have postulated (invented) the Oort cloud to explain why they are still here billions of years after they should have all burned out. But as Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote in 1985 (still true today), “Many scientific papers have been written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.”(2)

They don’t know why Saturn’s rings are still clear and bright (3), or how tiny distant Pluto could still be geologically active when by all astronomical calculations it should have been a cold, dead, lump of rock billions of years ago. (4) Nor can any astronomer explain why the moon, which is moving away from the earth at one and a half inches per year, was not touching the earth only a billion or so years ago (this is a big problem when the Earth and moon are supposed to be over 4 billion years old, and life on earth is itself highly dependent on the moon and tides).

No matter what the facts show, you can be sure that a secular atheist scientist will see an old universe, because as Harry Nillson told us in The Point, “You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear”. But Christians can be comfortable in the knowledge that there is far more scientific evidence for a young earth and a young universe than for an old earth. No matter what some “Mickey Mouse” astronomer tells you about Pluto, be assured that God created our little planetary friend, and it did not happen billions of years in the past.

Psalm 19:1-3- The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

(2) Sagan, C and Druyan, A, Comets New York, Random House, 1985, p. 201

(3) Hebert, J. Secular Scientists Dumbfounded by Saturn’s Young Rings, Creation Science Update, January 18, 2019

(4) Hebert, J. Our Young Solar System, Acts and Facts 47;(9) Sept 2018, pp. 10-13.

(For more on similar topics see “Ancient? Where’s the Proof”)

The “Created” Chimp Genome

view ape thinking primate
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

For over a decade evolutionists have touted the supposed 98.6 percent similarity of the human and chimp genome as “proof” of chimp to human evolution. Creation scientists and geneticists were skeptical.   The impossibility of evolution of  over 40 million base pairs (about 1.5 % of the human genome) in the short span of a few million years proposed for these changes by atheistic scientists was ignored.  Evolutionists assured every high school and college student in America that they “knew” that evolution had occurred based on these “small” differences.

But as pointed out by Dr Jon Cohen, in “The Myth of 1%”, these are NOT small differences.  “First, as noted, we’re not talking about “small changes” but rather, as the journal Science explained, at the very least these differences entail “35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans.” (1) This means it would have required massive amounts of new genetic information via mutations… a thing which has never been proven to occur even once.

But now a 2016 article by Dr Jeffrey Tomkins Ph.D., Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research, shows that even those ridiculously positive inter-species comparisons were wrong.  The actual amount of similarity between human and chimp genomes in recent, more accurate scientific studies was vastly lower.  He states it is in the low 80’s at best. That would mean there are not 35 million, but about 500 million base pair differences! He explains in detail why the original estimates were inaccurate and why the newer numbers are far more accurate. (3) Such a vast genetic difference completely destroys the weak and tenuous pro-evolutionary arguments.

Biologist Dr Richard Buggs, also states that we have no more than an 85% similarity.  In his recent Biologos post he wrote, “the total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4%. Therefore I would say to the man on the street: we know for sure that the human genome is 84.4% the same as the chimpanzee genome“.  (4)

Now compare the human-chimp ratios to the human-zebrafish similarities. “Sequencing of the entire genetic make-up of the zebrafish has revealed that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish and that 84 per cent of genes known to be associated with human disease have a zebrafish counterpart.” (5)  Does anyone really think we have recently evolved from zebrafish?  Of course not!

In the end, it looks like the Chimp Genome and the Human Genome are indeed vastly different.  It appears they were created uniquely and individually and purposefully.  This is just one more nail in the coffin of evolutionary theory.

 

(1)  Jon Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).

(2)  Casey Luskin “Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity”, September 30, 2011, Evolution News and Science Today.

(3) Tonkins, J 2016, Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination with human DNA.  Answers Research Journal 9: 294-298.

(4) Buggs, R.  How similar are human and chimpanzee genomes: posted on RichardBuggs.com, July 14, 2018

(5) http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article01036.html

(For similar readings see”Evolving Misconceptions” and “Vestigial Organs”)

Womankind?

art backlit dawn dusk
Photo by luizclas on Pexels.com

Genesis 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.

I just read 25 translations of this verse, and in every case the Bible said the same thing. God created them Male and Female. It did not say the doctor decided when the child was born. It did not say the parents decided because they wanted a boy instead of a girl. It did not even say that the person him or herself decided. On the authority of scripture, with no question of an accurate translation, we can rest assured that we are CREATED, by the all powerful God of the universe, male or female.

In fact, all 25 translations also repeat the statement in slightly different form in the NT, saying in Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Why is this relevant in a scientific blog about creation and evolution? Because it shows what science without God will accomplish. It brings us men in the women’s bathroom. It brings us gender confusion. It brings 51… 63… no 71 genders! It brings us preschoolers who “want a gender reassignment”! Preschoolers! Science without God allows free reign to the fallen human nature, with broken promises, broken families, broken hearts and broken lives. Children are raised without mothers, or fathers. Sex slavery is rampant. Homosexuality is called normal. Society is in chaos.

Science without God brings tens of thousands of people getting gender reassignment, and then finding that what they really needed was a spiritual change, not a physical one. And of course, once you have a major surgery such as this, there is not really any “going back”. The effects of the mutilating surgery, and the months or years of hormone manipulation are usually irreversible. God did not make a mistake, the patient did and the surgeon did. God’s answer was sure and true all along. God’s design is marriage with two loving partners, and children born into a stable loving home.

Since adopting the humanistic and atheistic worldview we have seen the rapid devolution of social constructs in Europe, Great Britain, and now America. This is viewed with glee by self proclaimed “progressives” who are not really looking forward to actual progress. In reality they seek to overthrow the progress of the last 200 years and return to failed political and social ideas such as socialism and humanism. They seek to be free of God and “all those rules in the Bible.”

We now live in a world characterized by confusion. People are confused about their purpose, their origins, their genders, and much more. People have attempted to assimilate themselves into the so-called “scientific” mindset exemplified by popular series like Star Trek, Star Wars, and The Big Bang. But instead of finding meaning, they have found hopelessness. Instead of finding freedom, they have been increasingly bound by drugs, alcohol, and food addictions.

The Bible was the foundation for the origin of science during the Enlightenment. The Bible should still be the foundation for meaningful scientific advancement. Yes, Genesis Chapter 1 verse 27 is the very foundation for scientific study. It tells us 2 critical facts upon which all our science must originate. God created… and Male and female he created them.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Science without God… Heaven help us.

 

(For similar topics, see “What About Public Education” and “Antithetical”)

Five things EVERY person should know about scientism.

close up of text
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on Pexels.com

First, scientism is philosophy masquerading as science.  It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.  If you are a scientist, you may not be enough of a philosopher to recognize its blatant falsehood.  If you are a philosopher you might believe you do not know enough about science to refute its claims.  If you are an average man or woman on the street you might just accept Scientism, thinking “surely all those academic people can’t be wrong.” Nevertheless, Scientism has never been proven true by ANY method, let alone the scientific method.

Second, scientism refutes itself.  You don’t have to be “smart enough” to refute it!  It is SELF-REFUTING!  Scientism claims that the only things we can know about the universe are those things which have been tested and proven scientifically.  Scientism has not been tested or proven scientifically.  This is not only irrational.  It is UNSCIENTIFIC.  True scientists, for example, do not reject (out of hand with no evidence) the possibility that the universe originated at the hand of an omnipotent Creator.  To do so is unscientific.

Third, scientism causes people to reject their faith.  Faith, religion, and Christianity are viewed as unscientific. If you believe the false tenets of scientism, you are suspicious of everything except that which scientism promotes.  You may believe, for instance, in evolution, although it is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, and has been proven scientifically and statistically and biologically and biochemically impossible.  But you will not believe in the possibility of an Omnipotent Creator God, which is the most probable and likely and reasonable explanation for the universe and the wonder of life.

Fourth, many things are better and more rationally explained by belief in a Creator than by science.  J P Moreland in Ten Things You Should Know about Scientism, says there are at least 5 things science cannot explain but theism can:

  1. The origin of the universe.
  2. The origin of the fundamental laws of nature.
  3. The fine-tuning of the universe.
  4. The origin of consciousness.
  5. The existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. (1)

Fifth, a firm, logical, scientific, and philosophically sound exposure of scientism may save more souls than thousands of evangelists.  This is because, at this point in history, so many of the benefits of science are easily seen, and are so much depended on, that much of society has come to believe that even sloppy science is better than meticulous faith.   This is of course, not true.  In fact, sloppy science is not science at all, and it is only by the rigorous application of the scientific method that scientific advances are made.

But Scientism is not rigorous.  Scientism is not science.  Scientism is not even good philosophy.  It is by all definitions, and at all levels, a personally and societally destructive phenomenon.  It must be addressed by pastors, real scientists, and real philosophers at every opportunity and exposed for the false teaching it really is.

 

(1) https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-scientism/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=630f94d382-20180922+-+General+-+Scientism+and+Secularism&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-630f94d382-290916097

(For more see “Differing with Dawkins” and “Lemmings”)

Neanderthink

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

Were the Neanderthals primitive hunter-gatherers?  Were they advanced Apes?  Were they upright orangutans? Did they interbreed with modern humans?  Were they actually much like modern humans? Why are Neanderthals now “extinct”?  Were they actually the long-lived progeny of early Genesis?  Did they live before or after the Flood?  These questions are the topic of much debate, and although you may read at any given site that they have “established” the answer to one or more of these questions, you can easily find another site which counters the evidence presented. There are far more questions than answers, and the status of all claims are subject to further discoveries.  In other words, we have a lot of so-called educated guesses, in both the Young Earth and the Old Earth scientific communities.

However there has been a great deal of interest in the field of genomics, and as stated by Clayton Carlson, in Rethinking Neanderthals, “The geneticists have taught us that Neanderthals are not simply human beings from long ago, nor are they just another ape. Neanderthals are certainly human, though demonstrably not the same kind of human as we are.”(1) Most “experts” agree that they lived in families, used tools, ate meat, used fire to cook vegetables, and built boats.

In all these discussions, never forget that the supposed “experts” that are contributing to a discussion on topics such as these are operating on limited knowledge, about events that occurred thousands of years ago, with no witnesses, and using dating technology they barely understand.  For such “experts” to suggest they have enough facts, or “science” to prove anything is rare, to think they have evidence so compelling that it contradicts the clear witness of the Bible on issues of human origins is ludicrous.

There are hundreds of questions, both from the Biblical, and the scientific perspective, as to just what happened to this enigmatic group and what exactly they represent.  I can only state that the Bible has proven itself dependable in thousands upon thousands of instances regarding history, archaeology, philosophy, geology, and human nature.  I have no doubt that it will be proven dependable in this as well.  The remains that appear to be human will be proven to be human descendants of Adam and Eve.  The remains that appear to be ape-like will be proven to be some species of ape.  There will never be any  “intermediate” species found between the two.

However, many believe that the Neanderthal was Pre-flood man.  According to the website http://www.genesisandgenetics.org/ if this is true it answers many questions about the enigmatic group.  Some have easy answers from a Biblical view, but are quite difficult from the view of scientism. Questions like:

What happened to the Neanderthals?  They died in the flood.

Why is there no evidence of pre-flood man?  There is, the Neanderthal.

Why does Neanderthal show different genetic material?  Because we still have some of the pre-flood mutations, but he had none of our post flood “mutations”.

Why did he not interbreed with modern man?  He couldn’t because they were separated by the flood.

In fact, if you start with a human and allow the natural effects of aging over a lifespan of hundreds of years, as indicated in the Old Testament, you might well find a skull shape similar to the Neanderthal!

For an excellent discussion of this topic, see answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/

 

Genesis 1:26-27-  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

(1) https://thinkchristian.reframemedia.com/rethinking-neanderthals

(2) http://www.genesisandgenetics.org/

(3) answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/

Micro-evolution under the Microscope.

technology lens laboratory medical
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on Pexels.com

1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for NPR admits this;

It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can’t exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do.(w)

2. We know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, or as Michael Denton wrote;

“Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”(x)

3. We have established that evolution itself is impossible, as written by Hoyle;

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it …. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.”

But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms.  What then?

Even then evolution is impossible.

Why? Because Proteins have shapes.  Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape.  The basic shape of the protein allows it to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular 3 dimensional site, exposed in such a way that it interacts, usually somewhat like a lock and key, with another protein or membrane in the cell so that a chemical process is either turned on or off (in the case of enzymes), or a portion of the cell is built. Douglas Axe showed evolution to be impossible when “He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds.”(1)

If one alters the DNA by some mechanism (radiation for instance) and the DNA now produces a slightly different protein, then the 3D structure of the protein is altered, and it does not become a new functional protein with a different and “better” use in the cell or the organism.  It becomes a useless, broken, messy, senseless system, producing meaningless and often damaging or fatal proteins.  (Lou Gehrigs,  Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis).  For example, according to Cystic Fibrosis News today, “The development of CF results from a misfolded or improperly functioning protein known as the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR).”(2)

There are, on the other hand, NO (none, nada, zero) examples of enzymes or proteins which have been altered as a result of genetic damage to form a new, improved, or more functional state. The oft cited example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is NOT such an example.  According to Munita  and Arias in Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance, “Classically, bacteria acquire external genetic material through three main strategies, i) transformation (incorporation of naked DNA), ii) transduction (phage mediated) and, iii) conjugation (bacterial “sex”).” (3)  In each case the genetic material ALREADY EXISTED and no new protein or altered gene was required. In fact, the path to antibiotic resistance typically involves a loss of genetic material from damaged DNA. The bacterium is no longer as healthy and effective and rapidly growing as it was before, but it has a side benefit of being resistant to a particular antibiotic.

 

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

 

(1)   evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta/

(2)  Stephen Shannon, Cystic Fibrosis News Today, March 12, 2015.

(3) Nancy Darrall PhD,  in six days, Master Books, pp. 190-193.

(4) Munita, J and Arias C., /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888801/

(w)

(x) Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

(y) Fred Hoyle (1981) “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, Nov. 12, p. 148

 

(For more see also “What is Natural Selection” and “Natural Selection is Magic”)