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.
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.
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…
You can’t have… Well, you get it. Secular science has good geological evidence that an Ice age occurred. There are telltale signs all over the northernmost landscapes that suggest massive erosive patterns from huge ice sheets and glaciers. But while most secular geologists have absolutely no idea how or why these occurred, geologist Tim Clarey, Ph. D. believes he has the answers in his article “Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age.”
An ice age requires massive, enormous, unprecedented, ridiculous, astronomically unbelievable amounts of snow. Estimates require at least 4,000 inches of snow a year just to keep up with melting snow at the leading edge! That’s not even considering how much is needed to create the massive fields of ice to begin with!
As Written by Michael Oard, “melting in a dry, cool Ice Age climate (50°F, or 10°C, average summer temperature) near the edge of the ice sheet is about 400 inches (10 m) of ice a year. One inch of ice corresponds to an average of 10 inches of powder snow. So for Minneapolis this would represent 4,000 inches (100 m) of powder snow a year, which is about 100 times their annual average. So, even during a relatively cool summer, the amount of snowfall required is tremendous.”(1)
Such massive amounts of snow require constantly replenished moisture in the atmosphere. The only possible source of such abundant moisture is you guessed it, WARM OCEANS. Why is this important?
For decades secular atheist scientist have told us they understand the ice ages. They claim to know when they occurred, and they claim to know what caused them. But if you ask any secular scientist how they explain the astronomically vast amounts of moisture that would have been required to create the glaciers… you can hear the crickets. They have no idea. Most do not even address the topic!
Traditional ice age explanations involve only periods of extended cold. The theories postulate that there might have been extended decades or centuries of cold because of sun spots, or wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or changes in the axis. Scott Elias writes,
“Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles.”(2)
Or as written by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek, “Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).”(3)
Note that there is still no mention of moisture, just cold. But at least the plebeian Wikipedia is honest, stating, “The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.” (4)
So who, exactly, does have a plausible explanation for both the COLD air and the WARM oceans? Well, it turns out that creation science may have the explanation. Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about ice ages, and he states that an ice age would require much warmer oceans than we have today and much cooler summers then we have today. And what could cause such conditions? According to Tim Clarey, Ph.D. “the answer is the rapid subduction involved in catastrophic plate tectonics.”(5)
But what is catastrophic plate tectonics? It involves rapid movement of continental plates, and subduction of these massive plates over and under one another (as might have occurred when Pangaea broke up and plates moved rapidly toward their current positions.) At such times, it is likely, almost guaranteed, that large areas of the earth’s molten core on which the plates rested would have been exposed to the oceans, and unbelievably massive quantities of ocean water would have been vaporized into steam and then converted into water vapor, and subsequently rain or snow. Thus providing PLENTY of warm water and cold atmospheric conditions… just right for an Ice Age!
At that same time, the same plate subductions would have created hundreds or thousands of volcanoes. Those volcanoes were ejecting millions and millions of tons of aerosolized gases, chemicals, and ash high into the atmosphere and blocking the sun (probably for many years) leading to atmospheric cooling. So it is extremely likely that if there was a global flood caused by plate tectonics and subduction, it would probably have been followed soon after by an ice age!
So to summarize, catastrophic plate tectonics (rapid movement of the large continental plates from ancient Pangaea toward their modern locations) wold have caused:
1.) Exposure of huge areas of magma under the oceans, vaporizing vast quantities of ocean water.
2.) Massive persistent rains for weeks or months while the continents moved and “mountains bowed down” (continental plates subducted and immersed).
3.) Expulsion of billions of tons of ash and sulfur into the stratosphere through volcanic venting, with subsequent rapid cooling of the earth.
4.) And finally an Ice age as the warm oceans continued their rapid evaporation, but the Northern and Southern hemispheres experienced severe cooling from volcanic shielding.
So the best, most plausible explanation for the ice age seems to be catastrophic plate tectonics. This means that in order to provide both warm oceans, and cooler atmospheres, we can look to the Biblical account of the flood. It turns out that massive amounts of water in the atmosphere were also required for a global flood, as written in Genesis 7:19, “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.“(6) But it was not enough to just have “lots of water” in order for the top of the mountains to be covered. It almost certainly required the mountains themselves to bow down! And this, too, involves catastrophic plate tectonics.
Psalm 104:6-9 reads, “6You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”
Job 9:5 reads, “He who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger”.
Those who believe the “Uniformitarian” assumptions assure us (with absolutely NO evidence) that Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years in the past. They say the rate of continental drift we see today is the rate that has been present for millions of years. But if you read my prior blog “The Uniformitarians” you will see that such blatant over-reach is common on the part of secular geologists. And you will see that they routinely fail to actually apply Uniformitarian principles, only applying these assumptions when it is convenient for them and for their secular agenda. (See prior posts for proofs including the Himalayas, the moon, the ocean floor sediment, and more.)
As I wrote there, “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.”
So, as with much of science, the secular atheistic interpretations about the Ice Ages may be in conflict with the Bible, but the actual scientific facts are not. If you want to understand the Ice Ages, your best bet is understanding the events surrounding the Flood. For a very good discussion see the site at Answers in Genesis “The Mystery of the Ice Age“.(7)
We all know Christianity is under attack. Secular atheism has taken over the colleges, the prep schools, the media, the entertainment industry, and much of society. We have been passive for so long, and have lost so many battles, ceded so much ground that there is now an epidemic of mental health problems and all of society is suffering under the weight of sin and hopelessness. Drug abuse and addiction are rampant. The family is under siege. But all is not lost.
At the center of all this confusion and suffering, I absolutely believe, lies the scientifically unpalatable and discredited theory of evolution. As stated by University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, “Evolution is the greatest killer of belief that has ever happened on this planet because it showed that some of the best evidence for God, which was the design of animals and plants that so wonderfully matched their environment could be the result of this naturalistic, blind materialistic process of natural selection.” Of course I vehemently dispute his assertion that natural selection could intentionally or accidentally design anything. (Please see prior posts on “Natural Selection” and “Branch or Vine”.) But I absolutely cannot disagree with his statement that belief in evolution kills belief in God.
What we believe about our origins has a profound affect on what we believe about ourselves. I am confident that evolution will someday be exposed as the greatest lie in the history of science. Take a few minutes to view my blogs on “A totally Modern View on Evolution”, and “BIG GOD, small god: Why Cosmology Matters”. Or look at “The Data in the Strata” on my blog. You will find that none of the supposed scientific foundations of evolution are valid. You will find proof exposing many of the fraudulent efforts of secular atheists to promote evolution. And you will find there is no real scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Like most of you, I was taught in our secular schools that Creation was a myth, and that science had all the answers. Although I found this teaching upsetting to my core faith, I had no idea how to respond. Atheistic scientists and educators told us they had all the answers, and the Bible, we were told, was just a fairy tale. As a physician and a scientist, one who has studied this social phenomenon for decades, I am absolutely certain that the opposite is true. There is absolutely NO evidence that evolution or Natural Selection has created any of the immense variety of life on our planet. Yet Public schools and Universities continue to teach the lie.
I would love to see the truth of the Bible brought forward in a way that offers a path to faith, hope, love, and most importantly salvation. My blogs at Evolutioncreation.net and Debunking-evolution.com offer the reader many scientific proofs of the absurdity of evolution, and the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang.
In Pinellas County we have hundreds of churches serving a population of a million persons. It is the most densely populated county in all of Florida. Because of this we have a unique opportunity to serve, and to shine brightly for Christ in these dark days, and we can do so together. If the Body of Christ can unite in service to humanity here, we can show Truth to a doubting and confused world! But how can we act together?
We can come together in 2 major ways. First pastors and ministers who are not themselves scientists, should look within their congregations for believers who are skilled and knowledgeable in the fields of science to help them, and to explain scientific principles. WE CAN NO LONGER CEDE THE INTERPRETATION OF SCIENCE TO THE ATHEISTS. Pastors and leaders should become familiar with the latest findings by reading books like “In Six Days” and “Refuting Evolution“. They should go to good websites like http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/33/t/how-evolution-flunked-the-science-test, or read my blogs listed above. And they should visit sites that support Bible history like the Ark Encounter, the Creation Museum, and The Museum of the Bible to find out how science supports the Bible.
Second, it would be entirely possible for Bible believing pastors, Christians, and scientists in Pinellas county tobegina world class Creation museum and Bible history museum right here, serving not only the millions of people in the Bay Area, but also the ten million more who visit the Bay area on vacation every year. And in the process, by teaming up with other Christian ministries like the Museum of the Bible, we could offer hope and salvation to a generation that is lost and suffering without Christ.
I work as an ER physician in Largo, and I live right here in Pinellas county. If you have caught a glimpse of the vision that I believe God has for us, please reply to this blog with a message, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. And please ask all your friends and fellow ministers to join the cause. Truth saves lives. Truth saves souls. May God bless you as you spread the Truth.
We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggests that humanity evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms, and eventually from some single celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.
We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer” the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail. It is finally being discarded by many who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts. You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY, and that evolution cannot explain morality.(1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the antithesis of evolution.
Evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste recently admitted that the project to build the tree of life is pretty hopeless, saying “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality“. (2) Or as stated by Michael Rose of UCM Irvine, “The tree of life is being politely buried… What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”(3)
As written by Dr David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “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.(4) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!
To further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “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.’”(5)
We have not yet examined the alternative view point, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine. John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (6)
I have no intent to pursue this as analogy thoroughly here, except to say that how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, or with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.
The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ. However the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “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.”
Certainly that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity. It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset.(7)
Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace. But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom, or an improved standard of living for society as a whole. We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.
Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in one sense that is true. But each is connected and intertwined with the other. The sociological phenomenon of secular atheism, for example, which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution. So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way , and the truth and the life“(8), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.
As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(9)
(5) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN0-300-02823-7
(6) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
(7) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in theflesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”
“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
“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,
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.
Teachers in North Korea risk imprisonment or death if they stray from the government approved curriculum. According to the site Foreign Policy News, the mandatory state school education includes large amounts of hate speech, revised history, and idolization of leadership.(1) And yet tens of thousands of teachers just “go along” and don’t make waves. Teachers are faced a choice of teaching what is in a textbook, or teaching the truth. Some have to decide whether to teach what is a PC, government sanctioned lie, or risk discrimination, disgrace, or worse for telling the truth! But is this unique to North Korea?
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.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.
David Gooblar, a lecturer at the University of Iowa, explains why this is illogical, “To put this in perspective, you got a dubious letter and just spent 20 minutes fact-checking the mailman. And then you actually opened the letter and found it was a signed letter from your Mom. ‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but the mailman is a Republican!’ ”(2) Is it really the messenger which deserves the focus of our attention? Should we not rather focus on the message itself, and read what our mother has written carefully and attentively?
This is the state of so called higher education today. In fact, I would suggest that the the highest calling that some of our educators strive to attain is not truth-telling, but inculcating a liberal philosophy into the minds of impressionable students, indoctrinating those youth into an atheistic, liberal, anti-God, pro-evolutionary mindset.
Now admittedly, teachers find themselves in a difficult position. If the textbook authors say there is no God, evolution is a fact, and the Big Bang has been “proven beyond question”, who are they to question such things? Readers will know from prior posts that the big bang and evolution have certainly NOT been proven, and are NOT even scientific, but are rather propped up by numerous unscientific allowances and alterations (think Dark matter, Dark energy and the Inflationary period). (See previous post “Bangers.”) But lets just start with this question. Does the author of a textbook, or the school board have a right to tell teachers they cannot believe in or speak about their belief in God? Do they have a right to indoctrinate all the children in public schools into the religion of secular atheism?
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)
If that statement is true, it is both powerful, and tragic. Are we indoctrinating students the same way Middle Age teachers did? But what can an open minded parent or student do? If one wishes to fully educate a child, and not just indoctrinate them, what are your choices? Many, it appears, are choosing not to expose their children to atheist propaganda. According to the site Conservapedia,
The use of public school indoctrination is growing less effective for purposes of atheist indoctrination due to budgetary problems facing many governments in the Western World (per pupil it cost more to educate students via public schools than private schools), the inferiority of many public school systems and the growing popularity of vouchers for education (which can be used for private religious school education) and the growing practice of homeschooling by parents.
In addition, many public universities college are failing to educate students properly and many college students are jobless as a result. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.(3)
As tragic as that is, still God works in mysterious ways. I can imagine the day when school teachers, school boards and parents come together and agree that indoctrination is NOT education! I can hope that someday soon students in public schools will no longer be force fed secular atheist propaganda. I hope that we are now at a time, a very special time, when tens of thousand of teachers will once again be inspired to teach, not push atheism and secularism. And then perhaps students will again be encouraged to think freely and evaluate faith, and science, with an open mind.
(For more information please see prior blog-posts; Pictures of Evolution, AND Millennials; A Generation Lost In Deep Time, AND The Cambrian Explosion.)