The Uniformitarians

20181005_1351525879507706738633709.jpg

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

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

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism

 

ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Atheism is a BLAST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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”)

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”)

Science vs. Scientism

sky lights space dark
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/

noun

  1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
    • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

     

Or as Wikipedia explains it:

Scientism is the ideology of science. The term scientism generally points to the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

 

I believe we are a world awash in scientism.  The pace of scientific advance has been nothing short of amazing for the last 70 years.  Yet the claims and braggadocio of scientists have so completely and utterly outpaced the science itself that an entire generation of youth believe quite literally that any thing that claims to be scientific must therefore be true. Now the supposed “heros” of science, such as Stephen Hawking, can write about any untestable and unprovable topic as though they are authorities.  Their opinions on the origin of the universe are assumed to be more authoritative than God’s Holy Word.

As Massimo Pigliucci , the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York, writes in the Blog of the APA, “there is a pernicious and increasingly influential strand of thought these days — normally referred to as “scientism” — which is not only a threat to every other discipline, including philosophy, but risks undermining the credibility of science itself.”

Scientism is not science.  It is an ideology.  It is a belief.  Scientism is the illegitimate offspring of pop culture and science, with characteristics reflecting vastly more media sensationalism than lab or research procedures. Some would even say it is a religion.  But it is absolutely NOT a proper foundation for assessing things like ethics, morals, or the worth of life itself.  Scientism is to science as Judas was to the disciples. It is a meaningless belief in the public show of science without a fundamental humble appreciation for the absolutely amazing and marvelous scientific laws that govern the universe, the atom, and all of life itself.

In a sense, Scientism is self-annihilating.  It takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, but that is not itself a scientific claim. It can neither be verified nor falsified by any scientific testing or reasoning.  Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless based on its own views.  Yet its influence over generations of youth and young adults remains unchallenged.

Austin L Hughes,  Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(2) Hughes rightly points out that what is so dangerous about scientism is that its practitioners pretend to be scientific, and imbue their writing with pseudo-scientific jargon designed to impress the masses.  But in reality they are less than scientists, less than philosophers, and less than ethicists and epistemologists. They ignore the six rules of scientific study (see my earlier blog on Unethicalists) and bypass the internal and necessary rules of all these disciplines while pretending they have the answers from science.

Practitioners of scientism, like Stephen Hawking, propose grand theories without any proof.  They cling to evolution and the Big Bang as if it is their very life force.  They discard all facts which disagree with their fanatical evolutionary religiosity, and continue to propagate myths, such as the evolutionary tree, abiogenesis, and the infamous “magic” of the cosmological Big Bang.

So, from one scientist to another, and to all of my readers, it would be wise to learn the meaning and practice of real science (the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment), and how that contrasts to scientism. They could scarcely be more different concepts.

For a great read on scientism, please see the article below on the website crossway.org(1)

(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

(2) http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

 

 

Unethicalists

abstract achievement bright business
Photo by Jorge Jesus on Pexels.com

Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problems.

First, and simplest, it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that we should be ethical.  If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs.  We may steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive.  That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.

Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions.  One moral choice is just as good as another.  Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well.

However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old.  They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2)  Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact.

Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently.  The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation.  The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis.  So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science.  They prefer talking points to honesty.

In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists.  The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why, because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator.  But what about their version of “creation”?

Lets examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.

  1. Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded?  No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
  2. Can we be sure that A causes B?  No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred, or when or how or why it might have occurred.  In their own writings we can find much evidence to support this. So we cannot  be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
  3. Falsifiability.  Can the theory be disproved?  Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
  4. Can the principle be replicated in other studies.  Of course not.  No one can replicate the Big Bang.  If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only.  Never again to be “recreated” by humankind.
  5. Is the evidence as strong as the claim?  The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared.  Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing.
  6.  Occams razor. Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.  Yes.  God created the heavens and the earth.  Simple.

So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails!  It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH.  And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story.  And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.

 

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)

Scoffers

clouds daylight landscape mont d aveyron
Photo by Thomas Brenac on Pexels.com

Did you know that the Apostle Peter, nearly 2000 years ago, predicted what Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking would say today?  He predicted the evolutionists who say everything created itself and the naturalists who believe everything just “goes on as it always has”, while denying the miracle of Creation and the God of the Bible.

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

2 Peter 3:3 states,  “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ”

You see, the foundation of all the old age earth systems is called Uniformitarianism.  That’s a really long word that means things “go on as they have since the beginning of creation”.  In Geology it means that the layers of dirt/soil/rock/ we call Strata must have all been laid down at the same rate throughout all of the past “hundreds of millions of years” of history.  Or in chemistry and physics, if we see a certain rate of decay of any isotope in a lab today, it must always have been present at that rate, and behaved in exactly the same way, since the “big bang” occurred. Because if everything has behaved similarly and the rates of decay of uranium to lead, and potassium 40 into argon 40 have never changed, and if our measurements are accurate, then scientists believe that they can predict the age of the earth. In fact they say their measurements come up to be in the Billions of years old.

We can address the absurdity of the belief in Uniformitarianism at another time.  But isn’t it interesting that the very words of today’s atheist scoffers are foretold by God in His Holy Word 2000 years ago?

Psalm 1:1   Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in  the seat of scoffers;

Lemmings

shallow focus photography of beige mice
Photo by Hossam M. Omar on Pexels.com

Modern atheistic scientists behave in a manner that is a lot like the stories told of lemmings.  What does a lemming do when you tell it there is a cliff? It keeps going. What does an evolutionist do when he finds abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life) is impossible?  He makes up a scientifically and statistically impossible story about lightning and “pre-biotic soup”, and keeps believing in evolution.

What does a lemming do when he sees the ocean?  He keeps going, runs over the edge, and into the ocean. What’s an evolutionist do when he finds the geologic strata are much more readily explained by a Global flood and are NOT by theories of hundreds of millions of years?  He doubles down on “his side” of the evidence, and keeps on believing in spite of the facts.

In all the old stories,the lemming keeps on running to its own death and destruction, in spite of evidence it may see directly in front of its own eyes.  In the same way the evolutionist keeps on believing that his way is the only way to interpret the facts, even when the Bible often provides a better explanation for the findings in geology, biology, astronomy and physics than uniformitarian assumptions (the belief that all rates of biological, geological, and chemical change have remained constant) .

How does an evolutionist explain the origin of the universe?  He makes up a term he calls a “quantum fluctuation”.  (There was nothing, then for some reason something happened to nothing and everything appeared.)  Now I challenge any “scientist” to explain what that is, where it came from, and why anyone should actually believe that over the Biblical account of creation!

The one thing that unifies “modern scientists” (except for the tens of thousands of creation scientists who research with eyes open to other possibilities) is their complete refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God.  So is it any wonder that their often irrational, unscientific, biased studies always support the outcome that there was a Big Bang and suddenly “it just happened”.  They believe there was no God, no Creator, because human scientists in their pride have said so.  And so we have believed, at least until the facts about the earth and life and genomics and geology began to show HUGE holes in their logic.

Stephen Hawking said, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” (1)  And he also said, “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” (2)  Yet atheistic scientists for the last 100 years have consistently turned away from any new knowledge, fact or scientific finding that does NOT support their presuppositions about the origin of life or the Universe. In this, modern scientist has condemned itself, by not applying the scientific method fairly and rationally to all areas of study.

I would think Hawking’s seemingly rational quote “One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance,” would have attributed a little more humility to the man.  But instead he pretended he KNEW when and how the universe began, and postulated in grandiose fashion that “There is no heaven or afterlife” (as though he KNEW this)  He bragged, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” (3) And this is one of the men modern scientists consider a hero?  Does the reader know that NONE of Hawkings predictions have been verified?  None of his black hole radiation has been measured. The explanation from the Guardian, in bold headlines is this:

We still don’t have the technology to verify Stephen Hawking’s big ideas.”

And yet like lemmings, professors at colleges and universities gleefully follow his inane and unprovable “scientific discoveries” as though they are “the gospel Truth”… and sadly, perhaps to the atheist community they are.

 

(1) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_447556

(2) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_378304

(3) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_124516

 

 

 

The Data in the Strata

For generations, we have been fed a scientifically unsupportable line of propaganda about how dinosaurs and other organisms were fossilized.  If you travel to any Museum of Natural History or even to places like Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, you will read nice (imaginary) explanations about how the fossils originated, and why they are at the site.  All over the world there are massive “fossil graveyards” where thousand or millions of fossilized creatures lie buried or partially exposed.

These graveyards are not evidence supporting evolutionists claims.  Rather, in the words of Roger Patterson, “the greatest testimonies to a worldwide flood are the many, massive fossil graveyards across the globe”.  (1)  Why would he say this? Because the very presence of such massive graveyards is evidence, if not almost proof, of a global flood.  Fossils do not form if a creature dies naturally and is eaten and decomposed by natural processes. They require sudden burial (as in a sudden, catastrophic global flood with massive mudslides in an environment that lacks oxygen) in order to fossilize.

Patterson also notes that in places like the Green river formation in Wyoming, we find birds, bats, ocean fish, insects and land plants all buried together.  How could these be buried together if not for a huge catastrophe like the flood?

And what about oil and coal in the deep earth strata?  We are told that there was lush growth which gathered and were compressed over millions of years, forming oil and coal.  Yet so many scientific facts and observations do NOT fit this story line.  For one, why would they not have been destroyed by bacteria and turned into simple organic matter if this happened as a normal process over millions of years?  That would comply with the uniformitarian views evolutionists claim to espouse.

Also, many samples contain carbon 14, which should be impossible if they are over 50,000 years old.  In addition, coal often has readily visible bark from trees, and even track marks from crabs, dinosaurs, and amphibians (2) which might occur in cases of sudden rapid burial, but not with gradual accumulation over hundreds of thousand of years.

And then there are those troublesome polystrate fossils (see the above picture).  How can a fossilized tree be found vertically, penetrating what we are told is many millions of years of accumulated sediments? Author John McKay, who has found “there are polystrates of just about every fossil known if you look hard enough, and the reality is that any fossils even those that lie parallel to their strata yet are thicker than one lamina of sediment, by definition have to be polystrate.” (3) But the question is, how can a fragile fern be fossilized vertically in strata that would otherwise be thought to represent millions of years of accumulation?  But for those who believe in the Great Global Flood, this represents no problem at all. It makes absolute and complete sense.

Famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History magazine said,  “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.” He also tried to defend a fellow evolutionist, writing, “Goldschmidt raised no objection to the standard accounts of microevolution; … He broke sharply with the synthetic theory, however in arguing that new species arise abruptly by discontinuous variation, or macromutation.”(4)

This overt admission that the fossil record does not support evolution has yet to reach the halls of academia, where evolution is still taught, and the fossil record is still used as proof. Yet Gould tries to rescue the theory with yet another unscientific proposal, seeming to believe that new species appeared fully formed in the past, but still somehow he manages to call this evolution.  But for an interesting and very readable account of this story, please see the article by Scot Wall in the Houston Chronicle from 2008.(4)

 

(1) P 148, Evolution Exposed,  2008, Answers in Genesis USA.

(2) Ibid, p. 151

(3) AskJohnMackay.com/polystrate-fossils-vertical-fossil-trees-any-other-polystrate-fossils/

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

 

John 1:3  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

 

Differing with Dawkins

man couple people woman
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

For most of my adult life, I have avoided the writings of Richard Dawkins.  Starting in college and subsequently, in grad school, I was exposed to his atheist views, and as a Christian, I was repulsed by them.  It is necessary, however, for the sake of the many souls suffering under his sphere of influence, to puncture the grandiose bubble of his atheist delusions and reply scientifically to his pseudo-science.  The scientific language barrier that exists for many in society can be a source of intimidation.  It may in some cases cause those who are not trained in the scientific method to retreat and concede ground needlessly to those in positions of “scientific authority”.  A man who is a skilled and gifted plumber, artist, or administrator might drift into a fog of oblivion when the doctor comes in and rattles off a string of medical, surgical, or pharmacological terms.  In the same way many people “give up” and assume that a scientist who can insert terms into a long and technical equation must “Know what he is talking about.” I believe such is the case with the writings of Richard Dawkins and some other prominent atheists.

For now, I will address some of his more popular philosophical statements.  Of course, I will agree with Dawkins on some topics and vehemently disagree on other.  For example, Dawkins wrote:

#1 “Let us try to teach generosity and altruism because we are born selfish.” Who could disagree with this? Psalm 51:5 agrees, saying “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” I would also heartily agree with his statement. I wonder how he could stomach being in total agreement with the Bible.

#2 “Natural selection is anything but random“.  You see, he is again himself agreeing with the Bible, and creationists.  It is true that natural selection is not random.  It only occurs within a species already created by God and it never occurs as a result of some accidental or random point mutation in a strand of DNA. Furthermore, his statement requires the presence of a higher power, or directive force.  If it is not random it is directed.  He can call it anything he wants. I call it God.

In another quote, intended as a slam dunk insult against Christians, Dawkins approaches the truth when he states:

#3 “Nothing is wrong with peace and love. It is all the more regrettable that so many of Christ’s followers seem to disagree.” Of course this is true.  See as proof quote #1. Everyone, Christians included, is born into sin.  Everyone has a fallen sin nature.  Of course I would add that as our society has gotten more secular over the last few decades, we have certainly NOT gotten more peaceful and loving.  And I would also note that our prisons are not populated primarily with those who attended church regularly and professed their love of Christ. But of course there are indeed evil persons in our churches as well.  2 Corinthians 11:13-15 reads, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

And who could disagree with this:

#4 “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”  True. They certainly do appear that way. Because they were designed with a purpose! Psalm 19 :1 says the same thing.  “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”  Job Chapter 12 adds “7 But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.”

But in his desire to worship his own intellect instead of his Creator, Richard Dawkins also wrote:

#5 “My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence, but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans.” Extraordinary indeed.  Only a fool could not see the Creator’s hand in all this. Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” and Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

#6 “You can’t even begin to understand biology, you can’t understand life, unless you understand what it’s all there for, how it arose – and that means evolution.”  And upon what is this based?  The word of an avowed atheist who has never even considered seeing the magnificence of creation through the lens of scripture! A man who can explain neither the origin of life nor the complexities of biology except to say it must have been a gigantic, meaningless cosmic accident!

#7 “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”  And how then does our great scientist explain Mozart’s Symphony #40 in G minor? How does he interpret the actions of Mother Theresa? Whence comes the universal appeal of the Mona Lisa, or van Gogh’s Starry night?  Why are we all dumbfounded and starstruck at a beautiful sunset? Or even more perplexing, why should we be almost universally repulsed by the murderous actions of a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. Such actions should, after all, fit seamlessly into the evolutionary world of “blind, pitiless indifference”! They are actually at the apex of “survival of the fittest!”

#8 “A universe with a creator would be a totally different kind of universe, scientifically speaking, than one without.”  Now here is a glaring example of hubris if ever there was one.  A mere man, one who by his own testimony wasn’t very good in school, one who has never created anything but words on a page, pretends to know how one type of universe would differ from another.  A mortal with such limited comprehension that he cannot even explain the difference between time and eternity, or how a thing becomes alive, or what is the source of gravity, passes judgment on how an almighty God chose to order His creation!  Proverbs 26:12 “Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.”

 

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.