Against The Odds… How Evolutionists Create Something from Nothing

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

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.

 

To teach? To educate? Or to tell the truth?

interior of abandoned building
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

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.)

(1) http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/02/23/inside-north-koreas-education-system/

(2) http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Teach-Information/243973

(3) /www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

 

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 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.

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.(1) 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.(2) 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.”(3)

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.” (4) Lerner is not a creationist.  But even he can easily see the absurdity of the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

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

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

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

(4) 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

Pictures of Evolution

Image result for pictures of evolution

Look up Evolution.

Then look for pictures, photos, or images of evolution.

You will quickly notice an interesting void.  There are none.

We have photographic images of virtually everything in this world, from pictures of our entire earth taken from space, down to the tiniest electron microscope images of objects a million times smaller than a human hair. We have scientific images representing millions of concepts.  You will find photographic evidence of the grandeur of life, the cosmos, and the earth and all its ecosystems.

sky earth galaxy universe
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Every branch of science is meticulously documented with millions of explanatory and supportive images. But you will not find pictures of evolution.  Anywhere.  Ever.

What you will likely find is a comic book drawing that has been reproduces tens of millions of times that shows some of the supposed variations and stages between a monkey and a man.  You will see an animal that walks on all fours, gradually transformed (on paper) into a bi-pedal, upright animal that looks like a human being. But that is the only type of image you will find.  You will not find photographic evidence of evolution from monkey to man, because it does not exist. In fact you will not find photographic images of any type of plant, animal, bacteria, or living thing evolving into another more advanced living thing. You will only find “comic book” illustrations originating from someone’s overactive imagination.

If you are of a scientific mindset one can’t help but wonder about two things.  First, why is there no evidence of evolution after over a hundred years of diligent searching by thousands of the worlds best scientists?  And second, why do we accept atheistic statements that evolution is a proven fact, with there is such a dearth of evidence? (see prior blogs, Hoaxed, Lemmings, and What about Natural Selection)

Not only can evolutionists show you NO pictures of current evolution or recent evolution.  In addition they have NO pictures or evidence of evolution from the fossil record (See prior post The Data in the Strata). They have NO proof from the study of genomics that humans are connected to apes, or that ANY of their proposed “closely related species” actually evolved, one from another (see The Created Chimp Genome). They have complete skeletal fossils of thousands of extinct species, yet NONE of any type of “missing link” from ape to man. Even as recently as 2017 the BBC admits we have still not found anything resembling a missing link (or as they prefer to call it Last Common Ancestor).(1) For this supposedly recent transformation, we only have imaginary “artists renditions”.  Anthropologists have reconstructed entire fanciful images (Such as Java Man, Homo Habilis, and Australopithecus sediba) from a small piece of skull, a tooth, and a thigh bone, or even less. We even have full artists renditions of a supposed LCA “imagineered” from a partial skull! This is unfortunately what modern “science” has become. In the effort to prove evolution to be true, all scientific integrity has been abandoned, and the wildest of unsupported, unsubstantiated claims have been accepted.

But if there are no pictures or evidence of actual LCA (Last Common Ancestor) from fossils, then at least we should see pictures and evidence of our genetic decent from apes in the field of genomics.  Textbooks should by now be full of chapters delineating the progressive ongoing change in our DNA from the lower apes, to the chimps, and to humankind.  But the opposite is in fact true. In fact much of the genomic data now points to a RECENT origin for humanity. (See prior blogs on The Created Chimp Genome, and Hoaxed).

And yet schools and colleges continue to teach the myth of Evolution.

 

(1) http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170517-we-have-still-not-found-the-missing-link-between-us-and-apes