Against The Odds… How Evolutionists Create Something from Nothing

black and grey casio scientific calculator showing formula
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.”

Against all odds, Julian Huxley the renowned British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and proponent of natural selection believed that although the chance was statistically zero for evolution to produce a horse, it happened.

“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way” (Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).(1)

Still today, all those who believe in evolution follow in his footsteps, doing so not because of the evidence, but in spite of it!

As stated by Joe Crews, “What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955: (2)

“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. “(3)

Of course, all the early evolutionists knew of this ridiculous improbability, but they expected to find evidence in the geological strata that supported their position.  They fully expected (or at least sincerely hoped) that in just a few more years, archaeologists would find transitional fossils and intermediary species, and mountains of evidence for their theory.  But the exact opposite has happened!  The study of archaeology has proven that life on Earth appeared suddenly, in its full array of complexity, not gradually over many eons.  (See prior post “The Data in the Strata.“) Consider the following written by Joe Crews in an article “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.”

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.(4) (amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test)

This is, of course, just one of the myriad reasons that evolution is impossible. (There are thousands.)  See my prior blogs for scores of examples. Yet secular atheists cling to evolution like it is the last life boat on the Titanic.

Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, made some brash statements may have cost him the Nobel prize when he stated that everyone in the scientific community relies on someone else to reassure them that evolution was indeed possible(5). The professor points out that biologists have assured astronomers and they, in turn, have been assured by “others” that it could happen.”The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles,” says Hoyle. “They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology) . . . The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”(6)

Fred Hoyle also wrote: “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)(7)

For many decades those who believe in a divine Creation have been labeled “science-deniers”, when in reality the opposite is true.  So, realizing that it may cost me my Nobel Prize as it did Fred Hoyle,

person holding round smiling emoji board photo
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

let me further amplify the statements by the brilliant and honest Mr Hoyle, and state that all those who belief in evolution do so for reasons completely outside the realm of science.

For a more extensive, yet wonderfully coherent and readable presentation of the above, please see http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test.

(1) Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55)

(2) http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

(3) Reproduction and the Origin of Life American Scientist Magazine, January 1955, p. 125.

(4) http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test

(5) wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101982213#h=3

(6) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize

(7) Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

 

An Evil Triumvirate

photo of jack o lantern covered with dry leaves
Photo by Bartek Wojtas on Pexels.com

Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships.                  Neal Mack MD

If I told you there were three closely interconnected beliefs which are destroying society as we know it, you might be hesitant to believe it.  So let me explain. First the beliefs, and then their interconnections. Each of these three beliefs is dependent on the other.  Each belief naturally interweaves with the other.  Each, if taken to it’s logical extreme, virtually requires the other two. (See last week’s post on Evolution, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism.)

Atheism. Christians and other theistic religions have no trouble explaining the origin of life or the universe.  An omnipotent God did it.  An atheist views that as a cop out.  He must somehow account for another origin for life. God is out of the equation. Life therefore, and the existence of the atheist himself, must have another explanation.  Enter evolution and the big bang. Pretty much everyone knows the definition of atheism. But most fail to realize that the atheist is completely dependent on belief in evolution. He has no other explanation for his existence. If he does not believe in God then he must believe mankind and the universe created themselves, or came about by virtue of some grand cosmic accident. Atheism is not in itself evil, just foolish.  Atheists are not of necessity evil persons, but atheism lacks the logical cognitive restraints against many of the sins and evil actions traditionally proscribed, forbidden, or banned in religious societies.

Evolutionism. Evolution is a theory (not a fact) developed for the express purpose of explaining life in the absence of a Creator.  Without evolution atheists have no explanation for life. Secular atheism is both the author and the beneficiary of evolutionary teaching. The chicken or the egg argument, in this case, actually works both ways.  The teaching of evolution benefits atheism and the teaching of atheism promotes belief in evolution. The belief that life created itself, is a faith based decision, usually dependent on atheism and on scientism.  Any person, religious or not, could entertain the possibility of evolution as an explanation for our existence. But since there is no scientific proof of events which happened in the distant past, they are accepted on faith.  One either has faith in evolution, or faith in creation. Those who believe “science has all the answers to all the questions” are in effect practicing the religion of scientism.

Scientism, the belief that science is the only source of useful knowledge, is also a faith based philosophy. It is a tenet of atheism that has developed over that last century into a strong influence throughout society that masquerades as science while promoting atheism and evolution. The two major (unproven) tenets of scientism are Evolution and the Big Bang. (See previous posts on Scientism.) Scientism is probably the least understood but likely most important leg of this three legged stool.  Scientism is an unjustified faith in science, as though it has all the answers to all the questions in life. “Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(2) Although that sounds a little intimidating, it just means people have come to believe that science has all the answers to all the questions. But clearly it does not. (See prior blogs on why Scientism is self refuting.) Lets take the banner belief, the poster child of Scientism, the big bang, as an example.

Eric J. Lerner, president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. argues that the big bang is not even scientific, but absurd, “The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.” (3) Lerner goes on to say, “In my mind the biggest pernicious impact of big bang cosmology, to quote my mentor Alfvén again, is that “it blurs the line between science and science fiction.”

Science?  Or Science fiction? Pretty much everyone is familiar with the Star Trek Series.  It was a staple on television for many years and a dominating motion picture franchise for decades.  In the beginning, which I still recall, it was called science fiction. People understood that Captain Kirk’s escapades with attractive humanoid aliens were imaginary.  But now, ask any college freshman about the likelihood of interstellar travel, parallel universes, and even time travel, and most will tell you it is all just around the corner.  Just one more discovery and we will have it all.  Those beliefs are based in scientism.  At some point people lose the ability to differentiate between reality and imagination. That is also the state of modern cosmology.  It is purely science fiction. Why do I think it is science fiction? I will let Lerner explain.

Lerner goes on to state, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” He continues “In most fields of science, if you have a clear contradiction between observation and experiment, you have to reject the theory. But the history of the big bang theory is that they’ve introduced new hypothetical entities that have no backing evidence except that they preserve the underlying theory. Twenty-five years ago the concept of inflation, which involves a completely unknown field and energy, was introduced to save the big bang from many very grave contradictions of observation. Soon afterward was the addition of nonbaryonic “dark” matter and, in the last 10 years, dark energy.”(3)

In other words  the big bang hypothesis has already failed the test of science.  But you see, Scientism has never been about finding the truth.  Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships. Do not expect to find rationality here. Hence the title of this blog, “An Evil Triumvirate.”  Our beliefs determine our trajectory in society as well as in our individual lives. The cumulative effects of our acceptance of secular atheism, evolution, and scientism have unquestionably had such a negative impact on society as to be reasonably called disastrous. The insidious evil effects of these three beliefs are coming into full view now as we see rampant drug abuse, homelessness, family breakups, HIV, pornography, economic oppression, and even sex slavery.  Why?  Because with atheism, the universe is an accident and life has no meaning. Because without the Holy Spirit there is no limit to the evil men and women can commit.

(For more information please see prior posts; A Totally Modern View on Evolution, AND Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism, AND Real Science, AND Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.)

 

(1) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

(3) http://www.vision.org/eric-lerner-interview-big-bang-theory-378

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

A Totally Modern View on Evolution

animal beast big carnivore
Photo by Mikes Photos on Pexels.com

A century ago evolution was a credible theory looking for proof. After tens of thousands of scientists have spent their lives looking for proof and found none, evolution is no longer even a credible theory. But tragically, in the meantime it has become dogma”                    Neal Mack MD

Dr. David Raup, who has been called “the world’s most brilliant paleontologist,” recently said this of the fossil record: “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.(1) (Bold type added)

Evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews wrote in the Introduction of the 1971 edition of The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin: “Evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory – is it then a science of a faith?“(2)

Duane Gish wrote in 1981 (still true today) “There were no human witnesses to the origin of the Universe, the origin of life or the origin of a single living thing. These were unique, unrepeatable events of the past that cannot be observed in nature or repeated in the laboratory. Thus neither creation nor evolution qualifies as a scientific theory and each is equally religious”.(3)

Francis Crick, codiscover of DNA, wrote, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”(4)

Sir Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, mathematician, and cosmologist, wrote, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”(5)

Hoyle also wrote, “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”(6)

Dr Stephen Gould, Harvard Professor of Paleontology, wrote “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it — selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.”(7)

Perhaps we should just stop and let that sink in. A world famous Paleontologist admits that the fossil record (one of the strongest initial arguments for evolution) does NOT support evolution!  Instead he proposes yet another unscientific “rescue” for evolution, one he calls “discontinuous variation” or “macromutation”.

To explain this I will quote evolutionary geneticist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote in his book, The Material Basis of Evolution: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(8)

Hold on folks.  The science stops here, and the fiction takes over! Gould is now admitting that new species just appear fully formed in the Geological record (in the strata or layers of the earth, they just suddenly appear). So he proposes they must have appeared fully formed in “real time” millennia ago.  A dinosaur egg hatched a chicken or a dog? So much for evolution.  Now we have come full circle. Either you believe in Creation, or you believe in magic!

For another very readable discussion on this, please see the article in the Houston Chronicle from 2008 by Scot Wall.  http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  ANM

 

(1) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(2)L. Harrison Matthews, “Introduction to Origin of Species” (London: J.M. Dent), 1971 edition of The Origin of Species.

(3) Asimov, I., and Gish, D. T. October 1981. “The Genesis War: A Debate.” Science Digest, p. 82.

(4) Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

(5) Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space

(6) Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space

(7) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(8) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

“You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things.”Revelation 4:11.

BIG GOD / small god? Why Cosmology Matters!

sky night milky way stars
Photo by Free Nature Stock on Pexels.com

Atheists and Creationists both agree creation and evolution would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Both camps, it seems, can agree on this one thing!  According to Stephen Barr author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, perhaps some of the battles between camps “could have been avoided had there been more good will and intellectual humility on the part of scientists.  We would all be better off if more scientists simply admitted that there are things we don’t understand about the hows and whys of evolution.”(1)  Yet in spite of BOTH theories requiring miraculous intervention, our schools continue to teach ONLY the secular atheistic theories of the Big Bang and Evolution.

Our view of the world, the universe, ourselves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But is this what science really tells us? Or is this merely the opinion of secular atheists, promoting their version of the facts?

Secular atheists have a great deal to say about their little god.  He can’t be real. He doesn’t exist. He is hateful and misogynistic and on and on.  But one thing that seems odd is hearing atheists offer opinions on what god can and can’t do. If your god has to wait on evolution you might have a small god. If your god has to wait 12 billion years for light to come from another star, or requires scientific approval of the latest version of the Big Bang in order to create the universe, you have a small god. If you think you can understand god, you have a small god.  If you believe your opinion on matters of eternity are more coherent, pertinent, and relevant than god’s opinion, you have a small god.

But if you have even a glimpse of an understanding of what scripture means when God calls himself I AM, you might have a BIG GOD.  If you have meditated on what it might really mean to be omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnipresent, you might have a BIG GOD.  If the miracles in the New Testament don’t faze you, because life itself is unbelievably miraculous, you might have a BIG GOD. If the matter of where God was before time was, or before the Universe was doesn’t really bother you at all, because you understand HE CREATED TIME ITSELF, you might have a BIG GOD.

Christians and most atheists agree.  Our universe, and the earth, and life itself are astounding and miraculous events. But then the agreement stops.

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 order for this magnificent world and our vast universe to be here, something miraculous and unbelievable indeed had to occur. In the debate over Evolution, the debate often just comes down to which impossible feat you choose to believe.

But here is the part you  probably don’t know. There is nothing scientific about the theories of origin proposed by EITHER side of the argument.  The difference is, creationists do not pretend to claim scientific credibility for their theories of origin.  Atheistic secular scientists do claim such scientific credibility, in spite of their dependence on mathematical mythology, and their huge problems with DNA damage, no intermediary fossils, a complete lack of transitional forms, polystrate fossils, flatness, the cosmological constant, entropy, inflation, lithium, dark matter, dark energy and the lack of any appreciable antimatter. (For explanations, please see my prior posts entitles Bang… and Nothing, The Uniformitarians, and Nothing Can’t do Something.)

However, I would challenge you to read their arguments.  I would refer you to a particularly good debate, for instance on pros and cons of the Big bang as science on Debate.org.(2) It is just a dozen or so pages of reading and is quite understandable (See footnote #1).

Another excellent source of understanding the Big Bang Cosmology as (junk) science is found on Quora.com.(3) I believe you will also find this to be an unbiased and scientific interpretation of the data. I highly recommend it, but just be on the lookout for the many times scientists say “we don’t know”, or “we don’t understand” or “we cannot explain” or “for some reason”. If that doesn’t sound scientific, it’s because it isn’t. Those who propose the Big Bang will say “so far results support this model” while at the same time saying they have no idea why their figures are vastly off (by several orders of magnitude during the so-called inflationary period).

For those truly interested in Cosmology, the entirety of the argument and pretty much all of its sub-chapters can be summed up in just one statement… If you believe in the Big Bang, then many areas of science can be said to support your beliefs, and those which specifically contradict your beliefs are just awaiting further experimentation and confirmation.  And if you believe in Creation, the exact same statement holds.

As Eric Lerner president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. states, The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.”(4)

He goes on to say, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” (5) Lerner is not a creationist.  But even he can easily see the absurdity of the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

(1) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/the-miracle-of-evolution

(2) http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Big-Bang-is-currently-the-most-credible-scientific-theory-on-the-evolution-of-the-early-Universe/1/

(3) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

(4) http://www.vision.org/eric-lerner-interview-big-bang-theory-378

(5) ibid.

 

You return man to dust, and say, “Return, Oh children of man!” For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday when it is passed, or  as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:3-4 ESV

Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism

brown framed light bulb
Photo by Skitterphoto on Pexels.com

Sometimes a single domino falls and hundreds more fall in rapid succession. I have reason to believe 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 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 science 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. (see prior posts on Science vs Reason, Hoaxed, Natural Selection, the Cambrian Explosion, and The Data in the Strata.)

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.
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).The teleological belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution. (1)

Unfortunately, although evolution has lost scientific credibility as explained in prior posts, it remains as the current foundational 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 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 referred to as scientism (see prior posts on scientism).

Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(2) 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!
In previous posts the failures of Scientism have been discussed more thoroughly, but for now suffice it to say that 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.”(3)
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.”(4)
Atheism has a similar problem. Of course Atheism, as we had inferred earlier is totally dependent on evolution and scientism in order to explain its very 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.” (5)
The good news in all this is that recently 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!

 

John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
(5) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

The machine that built itself

silver metal round gears connected to each other
Photo by Flickr on Pexels.com

If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.”(1) Evelyn Underhill.

Secular scientists and institutions teach that the creation of life on earth was a random, accidental event.  Though such a thing defies all logic and probability, it is nevertheless taught as a supposed “scientific fact”.  In 1993, Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC), as a solid proof against evolution (2).  In a variety of manners secular writers have argued against (but never disproven) his initial arguments.  IC is unpopular, but its basic premise is logical, sound, and supportable.  It is in fact infinitely more probable and likely to be true than ANY version of evolution.  And Behe’s resarch is now being validated. Michael Eggnor notes that Behe’s research has contributed to recent Nobel prizes in Biochemistry, and he notes thatNo Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for Darwinian research, and there’s a reason for that. Darwinism denies purpose in biology, and denial of biological purpose is a catastrophic impediment to science.”(3) (This was true at the time it was written.  Further discussion will ensue on the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)

As science advances, we have found more, not less, evidences of the absolutely enormous complexity of living things. However the answer by secular scientists is always the same… “Evolution must have happened, we just don’t understand it yet”. And there is a certain beauty and elegance to this argument.  It assumes a  positive and growing body of human knowledge, and it assumes the eventual ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles to knowledge… even the knowledge of our very origins.  This, from a humanistic and scientific position, is very appealing. But as we can discuss later, it is also dangerous in its potential for unreasonable pride and arrogance about our limited human abilities. But the question is not whether it is appealing.  Is it true?

There are thousands of incomprehensibly complex systems at the cellular level. Complexity is a hallmark of the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [4]

Perhaps since the secular academic community has learned to pat itself on the back for mounting a few (albeit weak and insufficient) arguments to Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity, we should introduce another concept.  I will call it Absolutely  Incomprehensible Complexity.

You see, the entire idea that humanity can comprehend life or the cosmos is absurd. It is as ridiculous as a machine talking back to it’s maker.  The layers upon layers of complexity represented at every level by DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, glycogen, mitochondria, cell membranes, plasma, electrolytes, semipermeable membranes, and all the necessary substrates for life and growth are quite literally incomprehensible.  Every time biologists find an explanation for one thing, another layer of complexity is found. Science has not brought us closer to understanding the mystery of life.  Science just makes us much more aware of the mysteriousness of life.

When microbiologists and biochemists began to sequence proteins, they found that the proteins function was more from its shape than from its chemical content.  This discovery tell us that minor modifications (evolutionary steps) are virtually impossible in proteins. (Because  one could alter a protein’s shape tens of thousands of ways that make it dysfunctional or even lethal, before finding a single alteration that might have a “new and improved” function.)

Recently it has been discovered that the genetic code of DNA is almost a Rubik’s cube of complexity.  It is so complex that one area of DNA can code for more than one protein, or have multiple expressions.(5)  One cannot randomly alter one, or a few atoms via mutation, without having adverse effects on multiple biologic systems.  If a frog wanted to evolve into a lizard, each step forward could quite literally cause two or three steps backward!  Evolution, as always, cannot withstand the facts.  Life is not just Irreducibly Complex, it is Absolutely Incomprehensibly Complex.

And this is exactly  what we would expect from an infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator God. As the Bible states in John 1: 3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

(1) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/14545-if-god-were-small-enough-to-be-understood-he-would

(2) Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free PressISBN 0-684-82754-9LCCN 96000695OCLC 34150540.

(3) evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

(4)Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.

(5) https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-gene-code-for-more-than-one-protein-and-how-is-that-process-regulated

 

Cambrian Explosion

20181005_134827In a prior blog I discussed the dependence of atheistic cosmology on explosions.  Secular scientists believe all matter exploded out of nothing due to a quantum fluctuation.  They also believe all life exploded into being in a short period for no reason a few hundred million years ago. They adopt these beliefs, not based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, but because they have no other explanation!

We discussed the absurdity of quantum fluctuation creating everything in another blog.  Today lets discuss the absurdity of believing in evolution, and at the same time believing all life appeared suddenly on the earth.

For over a century, those who preferred evolution as an explanation for everything taught, and apparently believed, that evolution was a gradual process, requiring hundreds of millions of years to make small changes that progressively increased the complexity of life.  But in fact, the evidence from the geological strata show it pretty much appeared all at once during or just before the Cambrian period. This should have discouraged the proponents of evolution. But since the belief in evolution is primarily a philosophical, rather than a scientific tenet, it did not.

Relatively little is known about the Precambrian Era despite it making up roughly seven-eighths of the Earth’s history. (1) (Wikipedia) Yet in this period, all life on earth supposedly originated, developed, and thrived.  Life not only created itself during this period, according to evolutionary theory it advanced rapidly into millions of species in a very short period. (1)  This is the antithesis of how evolution was described for over a century, and is in itself, proof of the complete failure of evolutionary theory.  In fact, in order to support the latest evolutionary timeline, during the “Cambrian explosion” there would have been the appearance of an entirely new species of life approximately every 50 years!

But there is more. The Precambrian and Cambrian Era are distributed around the world in what is called the “Burgess-type” shale.  In all the ares of the world where such “Burgess-type” shale has been found, all the organisms appear the same.  No variance, no progression. All are the same.  All over the world. No support for evolution here.

In addition, secular scientists recognize, “The way in which the Burgess Shale animals were buried, by a mudslide or a sediment-laden current that acted as a sandstorm, suggests they lived on the surface of the seafloor.” (2) (Wikipedia) This (mudslide or sediment laden current) sounds much more like a single great flood than evidence of evolution. And the fact that other living creatures are above this layer could suggest they were carried in by a sediment laden current afterwards, and buried in successive layers above the sea floor creatures.

The history of geology and evolution do not support the gradual development of life on earth.  Not even using Uniformitarian assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically unpalatable philosophical assumption in light of many new findings in geology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past 70 years.

 

Job 12:7-10 ESV “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
    the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
    and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
Who among all these does not know
    that the hand of the Lord has done this?
In his hand is the life of every living thing
    and the breath of all mankind.

 

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

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

(3) https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/origin/04-cambrian-explosion.php

 

Nothing Can’t Do Something

20181005_135152(0)

Where did the universe come from?

Secular Academics believe it created itself from nothing. Well technically it was a from an infinitesimally small small bubble of nothing.

Where did the bubble come from?

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in spaceas explained in Werner Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle.  (Wikipedia)

Or as written in the Physics ArXiv blog, “At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”(1)

Stated in common English, supposedly this quantum vacuum state (nothing) can (temporarily) do something, and (permanently) create everything (our universe) out of nothing…. all because of an “uncertainty principle”. So no matter how you phrase it, or what you call it, there was absolute, complete nothingness, and something appeared for no reason.

Now if this reads like nonsense, it is because it IS nonsense. The uncertainty principle, in its simplest form, simply states that you cannot accurately measure both the position (location) and the velocity (speed) of a particle because the process of measuring will by definition require altering one or the other (position or velocity).

“Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck’s constant, or about 6.6 × 10−34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.” (2)

But even if you DID believe, based on these secular mind games that are far more philosophic than scientific, that the universe somehow created itself, then there are all the same questions about where the universe came from, but only moved to another level. Questions like:

  1. If all the Big Bang scientists believe in an expanding universe, what is the universe expanding into? (Did Space exist a priori?)
  2. What happened just before the Big Bang? (Cosmologists differ / have no idea)
  3. Did the Big Bang have a location? Where? (Is earth at the center?)
  4. If nothing can instantaneously create everything, can we all be instantaneously replaced by another Bang?
  5. If they still don’t know if atoms and light are particles or waves, how can Secular Science claim to know how, when, where or why the Universe began?
  6. If you believe the Universe can create itself (something you cannot even begin to understand), what keeps you from believing in an Almighty Supreme Being (a being we are also completely incapable of comprehending) who has the power to create all things?

Secular cosmology clearly and emphatically does not have all the answers. Don’t let them bully you into believing nonsense.

 

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3 NIV

(1) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

(2) http://www.britannica.com/biography/Werner-Heisenberg#ref524688

 

(For more information see prior blogs “Bang.. and Nothing”, “Individualism”, and “Who are you going to trust”)

The Uniformitarians

20181005_1351525879507706738633709.jpg

It sounds like the Title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff. But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists pretend to apply the rules of the universe as we now seen them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billions years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be predicted because it involves “continuous and uniform processes”. Sounds great, but then they change the rules whenever it suits them…

As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism

 

ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/

 

noun
GEOLOGY the theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.

 

As further explained in Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method”.(1)

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity,[1][2] refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time,[3] but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space.[4] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.(1)

It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.) But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important in practice and in principle.

The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example these secular scientist apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies. Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and uniformitarianism.

Or as another example, in the study of biology, there is a well know and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non life”, or in other words non living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept.

Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.

Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, sea floor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is FAR too great to be accounted for by Uniformatarian assumptions.

In many cases the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism.  As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. Imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! it is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions.

Nevertheless, even though Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth. (see earlier blogs on “Ancient… Where’s the Proof” and “Bang… and Nothing”, and “The Data in the Strata.”

And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of evolution.

So whenever a biology or geology prof tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart.  Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.

 

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

(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.

 

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT

(For more on similar topics see prior blogs on “Lemmings” and What about Fossils”)

Atheism is a BLAST

beautiful celebrate celebration colorful
Photo by Александр Прокофьев on Pexels.com

Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either– despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning, ” they will say, “there was nothing– no time, space matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which…” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean”… Then they are away and before you know it , they have pulled an hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats. David Darling (1)

Atheism is a blast. In fact the cosmology of atheism relies on faith in the Big Bang, the biggest explosion of something from nothing that could ever possibly be imagined.

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter of The Ohio State University writes, “At 13.8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had a temperature of over a trillion degrees.”(2) Admittedly this is a pretty bold statement. Is it supported by some evidence? Yes. But proven? Nope. Supported by the majority of the evidence? Certainly not.

John Watson of Techreader.com, writes about the Big Bang,”The first is that there is a good reason it is only called a “theory”. The proponents of this theory would have you believe that it is set in stone and factual; but this is far from the truth. In fact, the Big Bang theory has so many holes that there is not enough evidence to even confidently say that it could even possibly be valid.”(3)

Harvard’s astrophysics site states, “Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang – or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?”(4) (Italics added) Now, while I think that it is a gross overstatement (some might call it a lie) to say astronomers understand what the universe was like a few seconds after the big bang, at least they admit they have no idea where the big bang came from.

Sutter and other astrophysicists can support the Big Bang claim as a possibility because of the observed red shift, and the relative local deficiency of quasars, and the presence of some background radiation that might have come from a big bang. But they have to accept it on faith, and they have to also downplay a large number of problems with their Big Bang explanation of the universe.

For starters, the Big Bang as an explanation of origins violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The big bang violates the widely held belief that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. (See Inflationary Period in earlier articles). The Big Bang also has problems known as the Horizon problem, Flatness (or Oldness) problem, and the Monopole problem. The Big Bang violates Einstein’s General Law of Relativity. The Big bang has a Supernova problem, and a problem that we can see fully formed galaxies that are supposedly 10.8 billion light years away, when they should still appear as if early in the process of formation.(5)

But that is just the beginning. For example… we should be able to see an older and older universe as we look further and further away. But we don’t. We should see much more uniformity after such an explosion, but we don’t. There should be some sort of evidence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but there are not (and all the Big Bang cosmology equations require them). Evidence shows the galaxies could NOT have coalesced, but there they are.

So, once again, we see from an objective scientific viewpoint that those who tell our youth that the Big Bang is a scientifically proven fact are at best misled, and at worst brazen liars. The Big Bang requires either 1) suspension of scientific reason, or 2) a vast amount of faith. And that is just for the Big Bang.

Secular atheism also requires faith in Abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life), and in the Cambrian explosion (which is, simply put, that all the sudden about 500 hundred million years ago all the forms of life suddenly decided to appear on earth at approximately the same time). I will say more about the Cambrian explosion in the next blog. But if I have not stretched your faith in science too much… here is what the Lord says about it.

Isaiah 42:5
This is what God the Lord says—
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out,
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it,
who gives breath to its people,
and life to those who walk on it:

(1) David Darling “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist 151 (1996):49

(2) https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html

(3) https://thetechreader.com/top-ten/top-ten-scientific-flaws-in-the-big-bang-theory/

(4) https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

(5) Patterson, R. Evolution Exposed, 2008, Answers in Genesis. p58

 

(For more, see prior posts on “Bang… and Nothing” and “Just the Facts”)