Chapter 4 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Evolution will someday be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science. It may be, as the title of Jonathan Sarfati’s book suggests, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?” Sarfati writes, describing one of evolution’s most vocal advocates Richard Dawkins, “Dawkins is much like his hero, Charles Darwin, who embellishes scientific observations with curious speculation to fit his own atheistic worldview.“(1)
Many atheists will admit there have been numerous “hoaxes” such as Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, or Boule’s Neanderthal man. Archeoraptor and Haeckel’s embryos were also proven fraudulent. Some evolutionary proponents will admit individual instances of a person here or there who “faked” a specimen. A few might even acknowledge the clearly “embellished” and fanciful horse series, (which has been put forward for generations as “proof” of evolution, but is actually three different species of horses).
These are just a few examples, but this is bigger than a few dozen examples can explain. It is a systematic, guided, planned, and intentional misleading of our youth. It is what some call textbook fraud. Evolutionists tolerate knowingly fraudulent pro-evolution evidence in school textbooks. New textbooks purchased by schools are filled with inaccurate information to promote evolution. School teachers and professors (at least the more educated among them) know the material is fraudulent, but they continue to teach it. Materials persist in High School and University Textbooks that were exposed as fraud over 90 years ago! Everyone ignores this, because this fraudulent data is the best evidence for evolution that they have!
Evolution itself, the very idea, the inane proposition itself will someday be shown to be the greatest (and perhaps most destructive) hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
How could such a thing have happened? Well, it is amazing just how far astray you can go with the blind leading the blind. Jesus told his followers, “Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch.” Psalm 14:1 also tells us “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” Unfortunately, for over a hundred years, our society has been led by fools, blinded by their pride and arrogance. Atheistic scientists are,by scriptural definition, fools. Why? Because they don’t believe in God. They have moved to the forefront of social consciousness, becoming so influential on our campuses that we have entire generations of youth believing that the universe created itself out of nothing and that life arose from a mud puddle to its current array of magnificent complexity.
Scientism is in many ways much like progressivism, or “modern architecture”. If you ask a social progressive about his or her political beliefs, you will likely find a mix of social, religious, and philosophical constructs that are largely a rehash of prior failed systems around the world. However, because the individual has not seen these in her own lifetime, they believe they are “progressive”, and they are therefore superior to the status quo. Many of today’s political progressives in America, for instance, promote socialism, or communism, or other impractical, idealistic, failed forms of government. These forms of government are in reality, far more repressive and regressive than progressive.
Similarly, when I look at examples of “modern architecture” from the 1960s and 1970s, I find an avant-garde style that was considered hip, innovative and state of the art at the time. However, the bizarre roof angles, shiny metals, and glass walls have since been relegated to the trash heaps of architectural design, with a preference for more conventional architecture rapidly returning. “Modern” may sound good for a while, but in a few years it is passe. Just like “Progressivism”.
The same will, I believe, soon be said of the fad of Scientism. One too many “new discoveries” will come along and undermine the foundations of Cosmology, and even the gullible public will realize that Scientism has always been the most unscientific of disciplines.
In fact, it may well be the burgeoning group of Creation Scientists at organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis who eventually undermine and factually disprove much of the currently accepted Old Earth cosmology. The Lord has chosen, in His divine and eternal wisdom, to allow secular scientists to dominate the progress of cosmology for some time now, and to define the current concepts of the origin of the Earth and the universe. But in the near future, given access to the same technology, many scientists and researchers who are Christian are finding more and more convincing evidence that the Earth and the Universe were created by the Word of God, just like the Bible says.
Or as Nasr has written, “Today, all kinds of philosophical conclusions are made concerning physical or astronomical theories and discoveries, often with total neglect for the limitations and assumptions originally made by the scientists. With Kant, physics became the source of philosophy and there developed a physicism very much similar to the earlier mathematicism of Descartes. With a real philosophy of nature there would be an independent matrix within which the implications of different sciences could be tested and tried and their meaning made known without the aberrations which so often accompany philosophical interpretations of scientific theories today.”(2)
― Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man
Romans chapter one vs 18-23 (NIV) in context shows parallels to today:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
It is critical, for the sake of our youth, that a generation of scientists, teachers, pastors, and parents educate themselves on the fallacies of evolution and the Big bang. Start from the beginning of this blog. EDUCATE YOURSELF. Visit sites like the Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis, or Debunking-evolution.com. Join the movement. Share these blogs. Save our kids.
Chapter 3 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
As we noted previously, scientism (under the guise of science) has been preached to unsuspecting generations of students, but it is NOT science. Nor would it qualify as a serious attempt at philosophy. Furthermore, physicist Ian Hutchinson has stated that scientism is not only bad as a philosophy. He believes it is bad for science.
“The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.” (1)
Arrogant secular writers like Richard Dawkins commonly elevate “science” while casting aspersions on those who believe in a higher power. They ridicule Creationist scientists as inferior to themselves because they supposedly “take the easy way out” by blaming everything they don’t understand on a Creator. Such an approach, according to the secularist, leads to bad science and lazy thinking. Dawkins said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world“. Whereas I readily acknowledge this might occur at times, I would argue that the opposite is equally true, and very possibly even more prevalent! Refusing to acknowledge the possibility of a Creator is equally unscientific.
To disallow the possibility of a Creator/God without any consideration of the implications, and without applying the evidence equally to both possibilities (the God possibility and the No-god possibility) is also lazy and unscientific. Creation scientists may approach science differently at a “gut level” than secular scientists. However, the fact is that both camps have a scientifically unproven and unprovable presupposition. Both have a “faith” in something that precedes and overwhelms their intellectual processes.
The fact is, either there is a Creator God, or there is not. Philosophically and spiritually and intellectually, I find strong reasons to believe there is a God. As a Christian and a student of scripture, I have the comfort of believing in a holy, loving, sacrificial God who has revealed Himself to mankind through the Bible and who cared so deeply that he sent His only Son to make a place for us in Heaven.
Nevertheless, I accept that this is a faith-based statement. I cannot prove scientifically that Jesus died for my sins. Yet like billions of others, I believe it with all my heart. The problem comes when secular science accepts an equally unscientific premise, the belief that there is NO GOD, and does so not based on science but on faith. Such a scientist then has no right or reason or foundation from which they can cast aspersions on those who believe in God and interpret scientific data differently. Each position is a statement of faith.
When all the observable facts and statistics of the universe are viewed from a Bible-believing, faith-based viewpoint, the universe, the solar system, the earth and life itself are seen as strong, nearly concrete evidence for the existence of God.
When these same exact facts are seen from a viewpoint of a secular atheist, they apparently seem to indicate that there is no god, or at least no god worth believing in, according to Richard Dawkins, who famously stated in The God Delusion, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”(3) So you see, Dawkins, like most atheists, actually has very strong feelings about God. If indeed an atheist does not believe in God, then why in the world would he or she have any particular feelings about the character of God?
In this statement, Dawkins does not so much seem to be disallowing God, as to be disapproving of God. He seems unable to comprehend the possibility that God is infinitely more powerful, and intelligent than he himself is, and so he uses words like megalomaniacal without even considering the implications. Seriously, can anyone who even comprehends the word “omniscient” attempt to use a descriptor such megalomania to describe the Almighty”? How can an All-Knowing God be a “know it all”? Dawkins is not placing God out of the picture, but placing his own (Dawkins) judgments above the judgments of God. Such is the case with many in the atheistic camp. Unfortunately his beliefs have been systemically inoculated into at least three generations of the world’s youth.
Sometimes a single domino falls and hundreds more fall in rapid succession. I hope and pray this may soon be the case with evolution. How could this occur? Well, in reality just one thing needs to happen. Real science must be allowed to freely take its course.
Secular scientists should be among the first to recognize the importance of seeking the truth. Science is a study based on ruling out false hypotheses and continually seeking a truer understanding of our physical universe. Science can ONLY be advanced by the honest and objective analysis of both our successes AND our failures. A repetitive refusal to acknowledge failed hypotheses is not just bad science. It is not scientific at all. But in the case of these three inextricably linked arguments (evolution, scientism, and atheism) the failure of any one piece exposes the logical, philosophical, and scientific fallacies of the others.
As science advances, even in spite of the extreme pro-evolutionary bias of our institutions of higher learning, the scientific underpinnings of evolution have been progressively undermined to the point that belief in evolution is now held completely on the basis of faith, not science.
But as early as Shakespeare, the phrase was used, “The truth will out.”
Or as Buddha said, ““Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” And this is exactly what is occurring in society today as we discuss evolutionism, scientism, and atheism.
To summarize, Evolutionism describes the belief in the evolution of organisms. Its exact meaning has changed over time as the study of evolution has progressed. In the 19th-century, it was used to describe the belief that organisms deliberately improved themselves through progressive inherited change (orthogenesis). (4) This has been proven by archaeology NOT to have occurred.
Nevertheless, although subsequent chapters in this book will show that evolution has lost most if not all of its scientific (geology, archaeology, genomics, and historical) credibility, it remains as the current foundation for teaching for biology in our schools.! In addition, there is an intricately woven web of assumptions and presuppositions developed over the last century in which science (or scientism) has sought NOT the truth, but merely sought to support evolution. Rather than searching for truth, atheistic biologists and cosmologists sought support for their own atheistic assumptions. This is one of the inherent weaknesses of scientism.
Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(5) Don’t let that definition deter you. It is actually quite simple. “The key principle is that Scientism is an ideology and a philosophy. Scientism is not science!
Scientism is completely illogical and ultimately self-defeating. As stated by Edward Feser, “Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science…Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial. Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically.”(6)
Or as JP Moreland has written about the self-refuting nature of Scientism, “The only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences” is not itself a statement about reality that has been properly tested in the hard sciences, so it cannot be a knowledge claim about reality. It is actually a claim of philosophy to the effect that all claims outside the hard sciences, including those of philosophy, cannot be known to be true. Thus, it is an inherently self-refuting claim.”(7)
Atheism has a similar problem. Of course, Atheism is totally dependent on evolution and scientism in order to explain its very existence. If not for an accidental universe imbued with accidental, self-sustaining, evolving life, the atheist has no reason for his or her own existence. But that is not all. As written by Matt Slick in his discussion of materialistic atheism, “Materialism is the theory that matter is the only thing that exists in the universe, and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of it and its properties. This would mean that everything must operate within the bounds of physical laws, including the human brain. But this presents a problem for the materialistic atheist. A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (8)
So we see that neither atheism, scientism, nor evolutionism is scientifically or philosophically sound. They can claim no rational superiority over belief in creation!
The good news in all this is that recently tens of thousands of scientists are beginning to clearly understand and espouse the failures of evolutionism and scientism. As they write and speak clearly of the scientific reasons that neither life, nor the universe have created themselves, millions of people may reject atheism and once again feel free to explore the more rational and spiritually fulfilling alternative of belief in an Almighty God who created the universe, and humanity, for His divine purposes.
The good news is that Atheism is no longer able to assume the stamp of philosophical or scientific approval.
The good news is that life has meaning.
The good news is you are not just made up of matter. You Matter!
(1) “The Perils of Semantic Ascent: Quine and Post-positivism in the Philosophy of Science” in A Nice Derangement of Epistemes
Chapter 2 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
Today I will discuss the importance of Scientism. It may be the longest and driest chapter of the book. But please don’t give up. It lays the foundation for understanding just how unreliable the concept of evolution really is.
I believe that most laypersons today believe the world is billions of years old. Most also believe evolution is true. And when questioned about why they believe these things, most would answer something along the lines of “Because science says so.” But what “science” do they mean? Social science? Formal science? Natural science? Pure science? Applied science?
According to the Oxford scholarship online, “The natural taxonomy of the empirical sciences would break the sciences down into three basic groups: the physical sciences (physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy), the biological sciences (zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, physiology), and the psychological sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, maybe economics). (1)
And within all these branches of science, as well as between the branches, lie many strident disagreements about extremely important and foundational issues. Scientists among themselves disagree vehemently about cosmological constants and the mathematical calculations on which the age of the universe is calculated. They disagree over the geological, archaeological, and genetic evidence for and against evolution. Yet somehow, the public has been convinced that “science knows” the age of the universe, and “science has proven” evolution to be true.
But in reality these the Big Bang and Evolution are not only unproven, but they are also in many ways deeply unscientific. Public statements about evolution are actually not Science, but Scientism. Yet few have any idea of the difference between REAL science and scientism.
Believers in Scientism feel that the natural sciences have preeminent authority over all other branches of philosophy and learning. It is similar to Positivism, the belief that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, which was first posited by Auguste Comte in the early 1800s. Scientism is, in essence, a fanatical and unscientific form or Empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world.
As written by Dallas Willard, “We say “science,” but in actuality there are sciences like physics and biology. We say “religion,” but it would be more accurate to say religions like Christianity or Buddhism. Scientists will tell you that they do have a method, but the method of one science doesn’t work in another science. The method of validating a theory in biology doesn’t work particularly well in astronomy. Method is always tied to subject matter, and in dealing with life in general there is no such thing as a single scientific method. This has become the quandary of our culture, because everything that really matters in guiding life falls outside of science.” (2) (bold type added)
Scientism and Positivism both make a claim to a form of superior intellectual authority. They posit themselves as more important, more authentic, and superior to all other forms of knowledge. But in doing so they cannot offer empiric or scientific or provable claims. Therefore these claims are not scientific, but philosophical in nature.
So Scientism is not good science, because it makes a claim that only scientific claims are meaningful, and this claim is itself unscientific and unprovable. But is scientism good philosophy? Jürgen Habermas, the German sociologist and philosopher, wrote, “The scientistic faith in a science that will one day not only fulfill, but eliminate, personal self-conception through objectifying self-description is not science, but bad philosophy.” (3)
Physicist Ian Hutchinson believes that scientism is not only bad as a philosophy. He believes it is bad for science. “The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.”(3)
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say”.(4) Yet in spite of this, modern secular scientists do exactly this, they propose a philosophy which is supposedly superior to religion, and philosophy, and all other forms of rational thought, and they do so without any evidence, scientific or otherwise. Hence proponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are often acting out of their perverted and unjustified faith in scientism when they ridicule and persecute those who believe in Creation. If their cause was the advancement of science, there would be no need, or place, for such antisocial and unscientific attitudes.
Austin L Hughes stated, “If philosophy is regarded as a legitimate and necessary discipline, then one might think that a certain degree of philosophical training would be very useful to a scientist. Scientists ought to be able to recognize how often philosophical issues arise in their work — that is, issues that cannot be resolved by arguments that make recourse solely to inference and empirical observation. In most cases, these issues arise because practicing scientists, like all people, are prone to philosophical errors. To take an obvious example, scientists can be prone to errors of elementary logic, and these can often go undetected by the peer review process and have a major impact on the literature — for instance, confusing correlation and causation, or confusing implication with a biconditional. Philosophy can provide a way of understanding and correcting such errors. It addresses a largely distinct set of questions that natural science alone cannot answer, but that must be answered for natural science to be properly conducted.” (bold added) (5)
Thus it can be seen that Scientism is not just bad science. It is also bad philosophy and bad logic. (Much more on this in the next chapter) It is bad for society and all its (scientism’s) practitioners. Like every form of incorrect thinking, it has consequences.
As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters.“Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct. Yet rather than admit the weakness of their arguments, or their inability to prove their points scientifically, each side often resorts to dogma. Rather than a free and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, many resort to ridicule or even persecution of those with whom they disagree.
The consequences of belief in Scientism include even such seemingly unrelated fields as agriculture. As written by Robert J Cabin, in the HuffPost; “More than 70 years ago, Sir Albert Howard foresaw many of the problems that would result from the over-zealous application of science to the vast biological and social complexities of agroecosystems. As summarized by Michael Pollan in “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” Howard argued that ‘’the problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters.’’ (6)
Cabin continues, “At present, a few multinational corporate giants control an ever-increasing majority of our food production and distribution systems. Often under the guise of ‘’scientific progress,’’ these corporations continue to replace small, diversified, highly productive, ecologically sustainable, locally controlled, indigenous agricultural systems (developed in the absence of western science) with ever larger, genetically engineered monocultures that displace the local human community, require many calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food, and contaminate the land and water with synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.” (7)
So as we can see, bad science leads to bad agriculture, and back to more bad science.
But perhaps, as we shall discuss in forthcoming chapters, the most alarming and worrisome aspect of society’s unwarranted belief in scientism is its effect on our educational system. There it has influenced generations of gullible and unsuspecting youth, where we see the resulting rampant rejection of faith.
“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
“Insofar as he makes use of his healthy senses, man himself is the best and most exact scientific instrument possible.” Goethe (1)
(FOR INTRODUCTION AND TABLE OF CONTENTS SEE YESTERDAY’S POST)
Chapter 1 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD
For those not yet familiar with the term, cosmology is the study of the origin and the development of the universe. If your understanding of cosmology comes from motion pictures, television, or even one of many secular colleges or universities, you may believe that “scientists” have established the age and origins of the universe, and our planet. You may believe that evolution is an “established fact”. You may even believe that science has proven the Bible to be a collection of fairy tales.
If so, you would be wrong.
One’s view of the universe is fundamentally predicated on one’s beliefs about God. Those who choose NOT to believe in God look for accidental, random, self-directing origins for life, for our wonderful planet, and for the universe itself. Those who understand the concept of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God have no need for such impossibilities, and in fact find compelling scientific evidence supporting the Bible and Creation. Consequently, one’s view of cosmology is inseparably connected to one’s views about God. Why does this matter? Because both science and religion, when taken apart from one another, can lead to distorted and wrong views about life.
“The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries.” Freeman John Dyson (1)
Science is an exploration of mysteries? But that sounds so unscientific! The whole concept of mysteries is a subtle, enigmatic conundrum. Not scientific at all. Not a testable, provable, measurable thing. It seems to me that Dyson’s statement might be anathema to many modern secular writers and scientists, who seem to believe they have all the answers to all the questions.
Many secular scientists would have us believe that there is no longer a place for, or a need for mysteries. Such things are remnants of our distant past, something from pre-history, or from the Greek and Roman empires. Mysteries were acceptable for our feeble minded progenitors in the Middle Ages, but surely we no longer have a need for such enigmas today! We live in the age of science, and we understand the universe! We have looked at our own DNA. We have peered a million light years into space! What need have we for mysteries?
Yet it is the mystery of it all that attracts us to science in the first place. We show a grade school child the unexplained movement of metal shavings when approached by a magnet. They are fascinated. We explain to them, with an air of superiority, that it is all easily explained by magnetism. But what is magnetism? What causes it? What are it’s rules and limits? We can look up the cause and quickly find that the magnetism is caused when the majority of electrons in a material spin in the same direction. Mystery solved.
But wait. How do we know that? And what would cause them to spin in the same direction? And why wouldn’t they just go back to a random orientation when challenged by any electrical or magnetic field? And perhaps most importantly… Haven’t the atomic scientists scientists told us that there is really no such thing as particles like electrons and protons? Isn’t particle theory is just a myth to help us understand how matter works? Magnetism is caused by the spin of electrons, but there is really no such thing as electrons! Quite a puzzling, mysterious enigmatic conundrum.
If one were to list some of the most puzzling and unexplained matters in science (mysteries), one would have to confront such issues as:
What causes Gravity?
What is Dark matter?
How did life begin?
How do animals migrate?
Why is there infinitely more matter than antimatter?
What is Dark Energy?
Where did the universe come from?
Why do we sleep?
Each of these topics seems more puzzling than the one before. And the scientists and secularists who claim they understand everything about the universe have NOT A CLUE about these mysteries. Stephen Hawking, who claimed to KNOW that there were black holes, and that they radiated a particular type of energy (a type that no one has ever seen or measured) could not answer these questions. Richard Dawkins, who claims to KNOW that there is no God, and that evolution is a fact, cannot not answer these questions. In fact every scientist who has ever lived stands in awe, and is completely humbled by questions like these. Yet in their pride, many secular scientists insist that they are in possession of all the necessary answers. They teach our children that they KNOW that the Big Bang occurred and that evolution occurred, and most importantly they KNOW that their is NO GOD.
But how can a scientist claim to know such deep, complicated, and intricate things? How can they KNOW the age of the universe when they do not even know what the universe is made of, what holds it together, or how it came to be? How can they KNOW life originated spontaneously when no one but God was there to witness it, and all the laws of nature and science say abiogenesis (life from non-life) is an impossibility?
The answer is Scientism. What is Scientism? Tom Sorrel states, “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”(2) In fact many modern scientists are so enamored of their particular branch of knowledge that they, like Ian Hutchinson of MIT, believe “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”(3)
Now firstly, try to imagine a world without wonder, without poetry, without music, without philosophy, without worship, or logic, or direct knowledge or experiential knowledge or all the other ways we learn in our daily lives! Imagine trying to learn life only from a science lab. Such a thing is ridiculous from the outset. Absolutely absurd. Yet this is what many modern secular scientist promote… and worse yet, this (Scientism) is what our children are being taught in our educational system!
And secondly, practitioners of Scientism will rarely admit it, but Scientism is ultimately self defeating. If science is indeed the only source of knowledge, but Scientism cannot be proven scientifically, then it is disqualified by its own rules. The scientific method requires testing a hypothesis, and if that hypothesis, such as the belief in Scientism, cannot be tested and proven true or false, it cannot proven scientifically. Scientism is not in itself a science. It cannot be proven, or falsified, in a lab. It is not even scientific! Scientism is a philosophy, and as such must be accepted, discussed, and potentially rejected under the rules of philosophy.
Now let’s compare and contrast this with what I call populist cosmology.
If you ask the man or woman on the street “Is it possible to predict the future?”, they will likely say no. It is of course NOT possible for us to “predict the future” except in a very few, short term, low variable type situations, like tomorrow’s weather. And yet as humans, we see this as just another obstacle to be overcome. So that is exactly what secular scientists are continually trying to do, attempting to predict the weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, politics, economics, lifespans, relationships, and dozens of other events in life. This might not seem such a bad thing. After all, isn’t that the exciting and compelling thing about science fiction, the desire to see into the future? What is the harm in that?
Well perhaps if it only involved educated, consenting adults who understood the actual underlying principles of scientific research and statistical analysis it would be acceptable. Or perhaps if it were seen for what it was, which is science fiction rather than hard science, perhaps it would be acceptable. Perhaps if humanity were better at separating fact from fantasy… But such is not the case. This area of “soft science” has pervaded all aspects of education and the media.
In another way of looking at this, one could say that the merger between science and pop culture has created a progeny. That progeny is called scientism, and in the name of science, our children are instead taught scientism from early grade school all the way through college. They are also exposed to it on shows like “Star Trek” and “The Big Bang Theory” and even “Avengers: Endgame” (all of which I find quite entertaining). But while it is treated as actual science, many of the predictions made by scientism (about both past and future events) have much more in common with indoctrination and fortune telling than with actual, provable science. Consider the following headline for example:
“Scientists Have Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It’s Going to Be Epic”
So reads the headline on Sciencealert.com. (4) And the article goes on to say, “The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. And, based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years.”
The science of Astronomy is indeed amazing. Astronomers observe, speculate, theorize and calculate. They attempt to explain this magnificent universe in which we live. But they fail to tell you, as they predict earth’s incineration and demise, that their theories and explanations are still, even now, full of holes the size of galaxies.
Or for another example, consider the following article by Jillian Scudder.
“It is widely understood that the Earth as a planet will not survive the sun’s expansion into a full-blown red giant star. The surface of the sun will probably reach the current orbit of Mars – and, while the Earth’s orbit may also have expanded outwards slightly, it won’t be enough to save it from being dragged into the surface of the sun, whereupon our planet will rapidly disintegrate.” (5)
Or if you prefer to get your forecasts from NBC news, here is a headline:
“Now we know what will happen when the sun dies”
“New study suggests our star will become one of the prettiest objects in the night sky.”(6) Of course, at the time they predict our suns demise, the earth will already be long gone according to their own predictions. The astronomers had been arguing back and forth among themselves as to whether when the sun died it would create a planetary nebula. This latest theory (latest computer model) says it will, and it will supposedly be spectacular to see.
These are just a couple of the many pseudo-scientific internet sites that predict the future of our planet, and the fate of our sun. But what happened to the belief that “we can’t predict the future”? Well, you might say, “this is different… these are scientists!” Yes, that is what they say. But what is a scientist? And more importantly, what types of predictions for the future have scientist made? What are their results and their credentials for predicting future events?
Well it turns out that scientists are quite good at predicting the future of a real time event in a laboratory if all the factors are known and contained, and the the basic processes of physics are completely stable. They can tell you what is going to happen in the next few minutes after you combine sodium and chloride in a test tube. They can predict what will happen when gasoline and oxygen are allowed to interact in the presence of intense heat. These momentary observations can be reproduced again and again in a laboratory or a test tube. The results will be the same and are thus predictable.
But what are their credentials in predicting things even just a thousand years from now? Has science ever done that? No. Not yet anyway.
Martyn Shuttleworth authored the following excellent discussion about predictive science.
Scientists and Soothsayers
“Prediction in research fulfills one of the basic desires of humanity, to discern the future and know what fate holds. Such foresight used to involve studying the stars or looking at the entrails of animals. Obviously, few pay heed to such methods, in the modern world, but many people expect scientists to become the new soothsayers and predict where humanity, the environment, and the universe will end up. To a certain extent, most scientists regularly use prediction in research as a fundamental of the scientific method, when they generate a hypothesis and predict what will happen.As part of humanity’s quest to understand nature, predictive science is much more widespread than before. Much of this is due to the exponential growth in computing power, which allows gradually more detailed and accurate models. These are of great use in predicting the weather or natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.The other factor driving this growth of predictions in research is politics and economics. Predicting the weather benefits an economy by informing farmers about what to expect, and allows emergency services to predict when adverse weather may require action. Economics is prediction driven and, as the current economic crisis shows, incorrect predictions can be devastating, although whether politicians choose to listen to the advice of computer prediction models, if they disagree with their policies, is another matter.With the millions of dollars invested by governments, or by oil companies using the predictions of geologists to know where to drill test wells, predictive science is only going to grow. However, this entire field of science and computing rests upon the same foundations that drove early scientists, the principle of making a prediction and setting out to test it. Unfortunately, these predictions in science are at the whim of paymasters, whether in government or the private sector. This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions, but prediction in research will always drive the scientific method. That is my prediction, anyway! “(7) You may have noted Martyn’s disdain for the effects that money, power and politics can have or science, when he states “This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions”.
Do you REALLY believe you evolved from a bacteria in a mud puddle? Do you REALLY accept that the tens of millions of species of plants and animals on our beautiful planet just accidentally appeared or developed themselves from nothing? If you do, please read this book. You will find many SCIENTIFIC reasons to question what you have been taught about the supposedly solid foundations of evolution. You may find that much of what you believe is founded in dogma, not scientific fact, and you will hopefully find your mind enlightened with a new view of science, and history, and especially evolution.
There exists an intricate, but little-discussed alliance between secular atheism and the teaching of evolution in our educational system. This is fostered by a false view of science and it’s limits and abilities. Evolution is discussed, taught, pushed, and essentially propagandized, while concurrently teaching our youth that science has all the answers (Scientism), and that science “knows” that the universe is 13 billion years old. Students are taught that life created itself from nothing and evolved, and by the time they finish college most believe that the Bible and all teachings about God and His creation are fairy tales. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This book is an essential and critical addition to the debate on Evolution and Cosmology (the study of the origin of the universe). It is essential because we must not lose another generation of youth to the false secular atheistic teachings of the public schools without providing a coherent, substantive, scientific answer to the questions of human origins. My only regret is that it was not written sooner.
I am a practicing Emergency Physician, and I have had an interest in the creation-evolution debate since I was in high school and early college. Last year I created a blog which can be accessed at Debunking-evolution.com or Evolutioncreation.net. This book is a compilation of scientific, philosophical and scriptural post from that site, a summary of scientific findings related to the debate on evolution vs creation.
This book is a critical read for pastors, educators, and students because there now exists an abundance of scientific evidence that disproves evolution.
In addition, there is beginning to accumulate an amount of scientific evidence sufficient to cast a great deal of doubt on the secular scientists’ proposals for Deep Time and the Big Bang. All of this is abundantly supported by and compatible with scripture. But why is this important? Who really cares exactly how old the earth is, or the universe is? It turns out it is critically important, because as I will explain in later chapters, if our youth understand the scientific failures of evolutionism and scientism, they will be far less likely to fall for the lies of atheism. (See Chapter 20.)
Science, when properly taught and understood, is not in conflict with Scripture. As I wrote last year; “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
I believe this book should become a standard for the evaluation of all future educational materials in the sciences, starting with Christian Colleges, Schools, and Academies, and then in the curriculum of every educational system in the US.
Table of Contents
1. BIG GOD, small god: Why Cosmology Matters. Our view of the world, our selves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But what does science really tell us?
2. Real Science There is no conflict between science and the Bible. There are just incomplete understandings of both. “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
3. Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism. The scientific underpinnings of evolution have been progressively weakened to the point that belief in evolution is now held completely on the basis of faith, not science.
4. Hoaxed. Evolution will someday be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science. Is it, as the title of Jonathan Sarfati’s book suggests, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth?”
5. The Day Evolution Died. Evolution began as a theory. Secular atheist educators have now for decades pushed it as “settled science”. But the science has come full circle, and evolution is no longer even a plausible theory. Tragically in the meantime, it has become such a firmly implanted dogma that few in the educational system dare oppose it.
6. The Cambrian Explosion. Let’s discuss the absurdity of the teachings of modern science. Secular atheists believe in evolution, and at the same time teach that during the so-called Cambrian Explosion, all life appeared suddenly on the earth.
7. The Data in the Strata. Do Fossils support evolution? Absolutely NOT. Are they compatible with a great flood? Perhaps much more than you know. Find out here.
8. Natural Selection: The Machine that Built Itself, The human body has been called the most complex and intricate machine in the universe. Do evolutionary scientists really have proof that we created ourselves through evolution?
9. Micro-Evolution. The Machine that Built Itself. Evolutionary theory all comes down to chemical changes in DNA, RNA, and Proteins. Is evolution practically, or even theoretically possible at this level?
10. A knife in the Back. Secular scientists who study evolution are like policemen who don’t believe in murder. What do they do when they find a dead body in the park with a knife in his back?
11. The Created Chimp Genome. In the 1990’s we were constantly told how closely we were related to the Chimps. Now that the real data is out, evolutionists are strangely quiet. What does it really show?
12. Sex: Evolutionary Accident or God’s Gift? It turns out that worldview does make a difference. In fact, it makes an enormous difference whether our children are raised believing they are a gift from God or believing they are the result of an accident of cosmology.
13. Science vs Reason. Yes, you read that correctly. The title of this chapter is NOT faith vs reason. It is science vs reason. Perhaps there should never have been any conflict… but enter human nature.
14. Antithetical, Lemmings, and Unethicalists. What is the difference between responsible scientific inquiry and scientism? Read this chapter and find out.
15. Five Things Everyone Should Know about Scientism. Scientism is quite possibly the most important new word every Christian should add to their vocabulary!
16. The Failure of Uniformitarianism. Secular scientists say they search out history by applying dependable uniformitarian assumptions. Do they really? How dependable are these assumptions, and do they apply them all the time, or just when it is convenient and supportive of their own presuppositions?
17. Nothing can’t Do Something. Where did the universe come from? Is the Big Bang really scientific? You may be surprised at the answer.
18. The Absurd Cosmology of the Big Bang. Is the Big Bang actually scientific? Has it been proven? Are “holes” in the theory bigger than the theory itself… or perhaps bigger than the entire universe?
19. To Teach, To Educate, or to Tell the Truth? A challenge to educators who have for too long just “gone along with the flow”. If we are to redeem the lives of our youth from the hopelessness and meaninglessness of atheism, and provide meaning for their lives, it must start with teaching Truth.
20. Millennials: A generation lost in Deep Time. What you believe about the origin of the universe affects what you believe about the Bible. And what you believe about the Bible affects what you believe about yourself!
21. Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture. Is modern science contaminated by the secular atheistic worldview? Is is possible that science could progress even more rapidly and honestly with a scriptural worldview?
22. A Hope and a Future. We can still save a generation of youth. Truth Matters. Science Matters. The Bible Matters. And YOU Matter!
Authors note: For those who have followed my blog over the past year, thank you. I hope you will enjoy this concisely edited compilation of some of the facts and science surrounding the modern day fable called evolution. And I hope you will share this with your own fathers, and children, and friends.
I plan to release a chapter a day for the next 22 days. Happy reading.
PLEASE TELL YOUR PASTORS, TEACHERS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS
Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and he believes the current battles between “science” and “religion” on the theories of origins are avoidable. He writes, in the article The Miracle of Evolution,
If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.(1) Here is one creationist’s attempt to unite the current teachings of evolution with the teachings of the Bible. But is it really this simple? Barr continues.
The question for science is whether the neo-Darwinian account of evolution is sufficient to explain all instances of biological complexity. Many scientists are supremely confident that it is, which is strange, given that so little is known about the steps by which some complex structures actually evolved.(1)
In a similar vein, Eric Hovind writes, scientifically speaking, “Evolutionist proponents of the big bang theory claim that planets and stars formed when bits of matter and gas were compressed spontaneously. But this violates Boyle’s law of gas established in the seventeenth century, which states that gases cannot be compressed without some intervening mechanism. So what is the evolutionists’ intervening mechanism? Nothing. It happened all by itself; it was a miracle. They likewise believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection. This is not science, however, and must also fall within the realm of miracle. In fact, evolutionists hold on to many more miracles (or assumptions) in their religion of evolutionism.”(2)
It is yet another example of secular scientists relying on miracles, “As is common in evolutionary literature, Brunet and Arendt do not ask whether hard parts (skeleton) evolved, but only how they evolved. According to the “rules of science,” questioning naturalism is forbidden. By limiting one’s explanatory toolkit to unguided natural processes, however, difficulties arise. There’s nothing like an appeal to miracles to get around a difficulty. As Finagle advised, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.”(3)
As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite “language” composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. It’s hard for us to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes’ worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!(4)
“The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn’t come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it. So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.) (5)
Yet you will never hear these facts in evolutionary circles, nor in secular atheist college classrooms. But the absolute truth is that neither the study of Science, nor specifically the study of Biology, is incompatible with belief in Creation. They will in fact inevitably lead directly back to God.
America, just 50 years ago, was known to have the greatest educational system in the world. Perhaps the greatest in all of history. No rational person would say the same today. What happened?
A mere 50 years, a tiny drop in the ocean of time has passed, and we now have one of the least successful, least effective, most profligately wasteful educational systems in the world. As stated by educational expert Arne Duncan, “At no level – early childhood, K-12, higher ed – are we even in the top 10 internationally. And that should scare us. It is scary and it does not bode well for the future.” (1)
What happened? Well, of course, many things have happened. Atheism happened. Scientism happened. Working moms happened. Multiculturalism happened. Abortion happened. Substance abuse happened. Indoctrination happened. But how did we get from fidelity, to foolishness in education?
Without any attempt to inject politics, “At the state and federal level, the United States spends more than $620 billion dollars on K-12 education each year,” Trump said on Sept. 8, 2016. “That’s an average of about $12,296 dollars for every student enrolled in our elementary and secondary public schools.”(2) Even the liberal-leaning site Politifact admits this is true. We once had the best schools, but now all we are left with is the most expensive schools in history.
Perhaps no single factor can be isolated upon which to cast all the blame. But we can be certain that the cause is NOT a lack of teachers, nor a lack of funding. These simplistic, knee jerk responses have been tried ad nauseam for decades, with massive, seemingly perpetual increases in funding. And the results? Massive, seemingly perpetual losses in educational outcomes for students.
Education, first and foremost, must pass on truth. Educational techniques are important but not essential. Many different teaching styles can be successful. Class sizes and budgets are, in the end, far less important than educational content. Style, in the end, is vastly less important than substance. No educational system that denies ultimate truths can, in the end, be successful.
Our public educational systems, and most of our original colleges and universities, were founded on a belief in the Bible and a desire to pass on the teachings and beliefs contained therein. Then came the scientific revolution, and the sexual revolution. And from the top down, educational systems have come to represent atheism as the new norm, and eventually to ridicule all things associated with the Bible and Christianity. Oddly enough, as that process has occurred, all the measures of educational excellence have simultaneously declined.
Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)
What is the source or reason for this indoctrination? There have been amazing advances in the scientific fields that have captured the imagination of teachers, students, and school boards alike. So much so that they have nearly all fallen prey to the fad of scientism. And in the process, students have come to expect the “magic” of science to solve all their problems, without room for faith, logic, mind, will, or even perseverence.
Austin L Hughes, Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(4)
Jason Barney adds, “Scientism is a problem because the field of education is not a hard science, but a branch of moral philosophy, scientia mōrālis. Every philosophy of education necessarily relies on a previously established account of what it means to be human. But scientism screens out such foundational questions about man, the good life, and ultimate purpose, in an attempt to be more precise—or precise in a different way—than the subject matter admits of (cf. Aristotle, EN I.3, 1094b12-15). In so doing, it does not actually attain a neutral, “objective” viewpoint; instead, half-baked philosophies and unexamined assumptions rush back in, as seven demons take the place of the one that was exorcised. Scientism promises us firmer knowledge, not swayed to and fro by the winds of history and the waves of philosophy, but in reality it delivers only ignorance of how we are recycling old ideas by recasting them into new, scientific-looking forms.”(5) Wow! What a succinct and cogent realization! If only our educators could see and understand this!
As I wrote in “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth“, teaching is a high calling, and that high calling involves always instilling truth, not lies. It also involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging, and political correctness.Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute. Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.
The solution to “what is wrong with schools in America” is not funding, or class size. It is not methods, or media. It is not even school choice or neighborhoods. All of these may have positive or negative impacts and should be addressed. But the solution to America’s educational dilemma is admitting that:
For decades we have taught the lie of scientism.
For decades we have promoted godlessness and atheism.
For decades we have allowed concern with populist topics like sexism and racism to overshadow all other concerns, including education itself!
If we could just find and teach the truths of literature, history, and science in their proper context, in the eternal light of God and the Bible, all these other educational concerns will vanish. If we return to teaching Truth, the minds of our next generation will be the best educated in all of history.
Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe “science”? More importantly, is there any rational or logical reason you must choose between the two?
If one were to listen to the media hype, the Hollywood explanations, prime time TV, or many liberal college professors, one might assume there are just two choices in cosmology. A person can either can believe “science” or one can have “faith” in the Bible story. But is this even remotely true? Is it even sensible to place science and faith in different camps? Or is this entire scenario a false dichotomy?
Many of my previous posts have already discussed the evolutionary side of this issue very thoroughly, and I believe we have more than adequately proven that belief in evolution is neither logical, nor scientific. Belief in evolution is clearly a faith based choice. If you read my earlier blogs, “Astonishing Ice Age facts“, or “The Data in the Strata“, or “A Totally Modern View on Evolution” you will understand that belief in Evolution is not a scientific choice or preference, but rather a philosophical one. There are vastly more scientific facts and principles supporting Creation, than those supporting the Big Bang or Evolution.
Perhaps belief in Evolution stems from a prideful desire to elevate man to the point of understanding all of the Universe and Creation. Perhaps, as noted in the earlier blog “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth?” it is just generational indoctrination. Or maybe it originates in the illogical belief that avoiding belief in God as our Creator will somehow avoid the consequences of our sins, failures and rebellion. Regardless, as the tagline of this blog has stated from the beginning, “It takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.”
The evidence (outlined in 80 or so blogs over the last year) clearly shows that belief in Evolution is a faith based choice. But what of the other side? Is belief in Creation merely a “Scientific cop out”? Do proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and so-called “creation scientists” abandon scientific processes and base their beliefs totally on religious principles? Not so, according to the following quote from Casey Luskin originally posted at OpposingViews.com. Speaking of ID (Intelligent Design), he writes;
“One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a “faith-based” argument. Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes.”(1)
Luskin further explains, “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. As noted, ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”(2)
Luskin “gets it”. Most secular atheists don’t. There is absolutely NO logical reason to separate science vs faith on issues of cosmology, or any issues related to where humanity or the universe originated. However, if one were to objectively discuss which cosmology has more scientific support, I believe firmly that Creation science would win the argument. Still, the point remains, there is no reason to “choose” one or the other. Science, unimpeded and freely practiced, is not in opposition to Scripture!
As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters.“Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.
In essence, as written by Stephen C. Meyer, “Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are “telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.”(3)
You have a mind. You have an intellect. (Both of which are, by the way, strong arguments for ID.) You get to choose whether you believe secular stories about a universe that magically appeared from nothing and life that created itself, or to believe in an Almighty Creator God. But you cannot use as your crutch any statement that you don’t believe in Creation because it is not scientific. Not if you want to be intellectually honest.
Scientific textbooks show a diagram of the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe. So it must be true! Right? Someone took the time to draw a diagram, and lots of people copied and reproduced it, so it is a proven scientific fact, right? Well, lets look into that.
First, let’s consider just the basics about the who, what, when, where and why questions. People (secular atheistic scientists) claim they “know” the big bang occurred 13 Billion years ago. But who or what caused it, why did it occur, and where was the Bang? If it occurred, shouldn’t we be able to tell WHERE? In fact, scientists have been looking for the answer to that question for decades! Here is an explanation written by Marcus Woo from the site Livescience.com:
“Looking up at a clear night sky, you see stars in every direction. It almost feels as if you’re at the center of the cosmos. But are you? And if not, where is the center of the universe?
The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.” (1)
So apparently, since they could not find where the center was, they have decided there was no bang, or maybe the bang was everywhere at once. But first there was nothing, then EVERYTHING appeared ALL AT ONCE from nothing… EVERYWHERE.
In fact “everything and everywhere just appeared all at once from nothing” is a quick summary of what science has to say about Origins.
There was nothing, and then there was everything. You can see that Scientific Cosmology has no answers. Sounds more like a lot of scientists gossiping about things they frankly admit (among themselves) they don’t understand. So to cover their lack of understanding, they say maybe there is a missing dimension, or maybe you (and I) are just not smart enough to understand. Some even say our entire universe appeared from another dimension… (as if that is any sort of a scientific explanation!)
Woo continues, “So far, theoretical ideas and observations — such as those of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the afterglow from the Big Bang — point to a remarkably flat universe. But cosmologists still aren’t sure if the universe is indeed flat or if the curvature is so wide that the universe only appears flat — similar to how Earth feels flat on the surface.”(1)
Did you catch that? Now of course the meaning of flatness in cosmology is entirely different than the meaning of the same word in geometry. Nevertheless, people used to think the earth was flat, and now cosmologists refer to the universe being “flat”. But note the phrase “cosmologists still aren’t sure“… but wait! I thought scientists knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred and how hot it was and that it came about due to the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle!
“That the universe has no center — and, by extension, no edge — is consistent with the cosmological principle, the idea that no place in the universe is special. Observations of how galaxy clusters are distributed and the cosmic microwave background reveal a cosmos that, when you zoom out far enough, does indeed look the same everywhere. Throughout history, humans have wrongly thought we were at or near the center of the universe —whether that center was the Earth, the sun or even the Milky Way galaxy. But no matter how special we humans think we are, the universe has, so far, shown otherwise.” (1)
So let me get this straight. There was a Big Bang. But since there is no sign of where the Big Bang occurred, we just assume it’s hidden, or maybe it is curved or flat or in a different dimension. But nevertheless, Woo and the scientists somehow know that we are certainly NOT at it’s center? To further explain this, let’s go to another well know internet site that explains the Big Bang, Cosmology and the “inflationary universe”.
“Like dark matter, cosmic inflation (even if it is not actually proven beyond all doubt) is now usually seen as part of the standard Big Bang theory, and to some extent the two additional concepts rescue the Big Bang theory from being completely untenable. However, other potential problems still remain.“(2)
So you see, what we really have in the Big Bang is a “completely untenable” theory that must needs be rescued by any means necessary! But anyway, the ONE thing you can be sure of is that it is all under control due to the immensely strong effects of dark matter, right? That invisible , undetectable , theoretical stuff that holds everything together and keeps the universe “flat” (keeps it from exploding into nothingness).
But what is dark matter? Scientist don’t know. What caused it? Scientists don’t know. How does it act? Where did it come from? Scientists don’t know. How do we test it or prove it or find it or measure it? Scientists don’t know. Hmmm. That’s a lot of not knowing for people who assure us they know exactly how old the universe is and who assure us they know everything originated an a big bang…
Or back to the original question. Where is the center of the universe? Here is info from the site spaceanswers.com:
“If you were around in the 1500s, during the time of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, then the answer to this question would have been the Sun. Obviously, despite how we see the planets and stars moving across the night sky, our star is not at the centre of the Universe. So what is?
Today astronomers believe that there is no centre to the cosmos. You might think that there must be a central point – after all, the Big Bang must have started somewhere? While great explosions of say, a bomb, do start from one point, the Big Bang that is believed to have created our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago was a different matter entirely and appeared to happen everywhere all at once – time and space did not exist before the Big Bang and so there was no point from where it could have erupted from.” (3)
If any of that makes sense to you, and explains where the universe originated… congratulations. Because scientists still don’t know. They really don’t have a CLUE!
Isaiah 66:2 “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”
Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you. When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution. Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..
The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature. Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
The geological strata do not support gradual evolution. Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.) Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution. There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct. Some estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2) Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
There is no evidence of current evolution. The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes, as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for lifeto occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)
So, all things considered, the most plausible SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”