Chemically impaired? Why not?

white pink and yellow blister packs
Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Just a short note to ask a simple question today.

In my job as an Emergency room physician, I frequently see people who are “chemically impaired”.  Opiates,  benzo’s, cocaine, or maybe just THC or alcohol.  Sometimes more than a dozen a day.  Some agitated, aggressive and dangerous… some mellow, sad, and depressed.  Occasionally they arrive hyperactive.  Sometimes they are somnolent and snoring.  And sometimes, in a mood dominated by fatigue more than by compassion, one of the ER nurses will say “There is one more example of survival of the fittest in action.”

And in view of the evolution/creation debate, this raises a question?  Is there anything wrong with substance abuse?  If the universe, and life itself are random accidents, why not “escape” reality every chance we get?  And if it causes pain or suffering or emotional distress to others in our family or our community, so what?  If there is no higher power, and no such thing as religion or spirituality, who cares? Why should a bipedal sentient evolutionary accident care?  What difference does it make to a random collection of molecules?

Evolutionists loudly promulgate their religion in schools and on college campuses.  They label anyone who differs with their agenda as a miscreant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, or at best woefully uninformed.  But why do they care?

Is is because they genuinely care that others might be uninformed or uneducated on the issue?  I don’t believe so.

Is it because they want all the social mores that restrict them from uninhibited sexual expression and substance abuse removed?  Is it because they are offended by the possibility of a God to who they are ultimately accountable? I believe it is.

Rampant uninhibited sexuality and uncontrolled substance abuse are both damaging to society.  They are also both dangerous to the individual.  But if we believe the random nature of existence suggested by evolution and the Big Bang, why does it really matter?

 

The Lord your God is with you. He’s mighty to deliver. He takes great delight in you. He will quiet you with His love. He rejoices over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)

 

 

 

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

 

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”)

Real Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you agree, please feel free to share.

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

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

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

Womankind?

art backlit dawn dusk
Photo by luizclas on Pexels.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science without God… Heaven help us.

 

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

Five things EVERY person should know about scientism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Neanderthink

nature walking animal strong
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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