Search This Blog

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Dear Darwinist - Topics to avoid if you don't want to lie

If you are alive and have a brain, you have a philosophy of life.   We tend to call this philosophy of life a worldview.   Your worldview contains your suppositions about the meaning of life and the basic answers to the "Big Questions" such as "Is there a God?" and "Does life have meaning?"   Another one might be "Who or what made all of this stuff?"   Your worldview will logically include an explanation for the existence of, well, existence!

Frankly, if you are a Darwinist I have to question why you bother to read anything or believe anything or assert anything.  A pure Darwinist believes that we all have evolved by an unthinkable continuum of amazing pure dumb undirected luck into this Universe in this Solar System on this planet in this body and that there is neither reason nor meaning to any of it.   So if my brain is the result of random evolution and those synapses firing are just happy mistakes, why would I believe my own thoughts?   How can I even hope to reason if reason is not at the bottom of my existence?  How can I be sure that you exist and are not simply a figment of my inexplicable imagination?  Do I exist?  Will we all just *poof* away in the same manner we *poofed* into existence in the first place?


How do we have and use logic and reason if the world is a random accident?   How is it that there are logical laws concerning the way matter and energy work that we can depend upon and use to benefit us as the human race?  How is it that you and I can think abstractly and design or create in ways that cannot possibly be beneficial to our survival over the guy next door?   Why do we have morality?   Shouldn't I kill all the other men in the area and impregnate all the local women so more of me proliferates?   If evolution is true, is it not my duty to reproduce myself at all costs?

Real science began to work well when believing men with education, most of them trained as clerics, decided that a Logical God would build a Logical World and therefore one could study the world and understand processes and phenomenae.  These men believed that study and hard work would be rewarded, and they were right, the Bacons and Newtons and Faradays and Von Brauns.   They believed that understanding God's glorious creation and revealing the working parts to the world would benefit mankind and help man to worship the Mighty God.  

Don't use the Big Bang

Because we know that we are three dimensional beings constrained by the fourth dimension, then we know that we are apparently material in form and substance.   We observe, and the Laws of Thermodynamics agree, that to put it simply everything is running downhill.   We can see that all of the Universe will eventually encounter heat death in which all energy has been converted to entropy.  We know that we have found no material source for creating new "stuff" nor does anything get destroyed.  It just fades away.  So the old concept of an eternal Universe is no longer viable.   The Universe is not infinite and ageless.   It had a beginning and it is heading for an end.

So if you are a Darwinist and you have studied physic a little bit and paid attention to the basic condition of the Universe, you know that the Universe appears to be expanding and that there is not enough mass to produce enough gravity to bring these stars and other objects back to a supposed central starting point, so if there was a Big Bang there is no hope for a retraction of matter back to a central starting point and no hope that object will come flying together in order to Bang again.

But, no particular Big Bang theory has been able to account for all the evidence and no one has been able to define the singularity at the "begining" of a Big Bang nor explain the power that would have caused it nor the source of the original singularity nor account for the product of the explosion.   Explosions break things, they destroy things.  Yet Big Bang believers think that an explosion built all sorts of atoms that were able to join together to provide a great deal of water and yet also form stars and other objects.  There is no logical explanation for this.   The supposed big brain of Astrophysicists or whatever title he gives himself, Stephen Hawking, has basically now asserted that the Universe created itself using a force (gravity) that would not be in existence without existence and so this assertion is ridiculous on the face of it.    In fact Hawking states with authority that there are something like a gazillion universes (put in your own number) all occuring at once made by nothing from nothing.   If you find that to be a satisfactory answer, perhaps you believe babies are grown in cabbage patchs and mommies and daddies go there to select their infant.   Each assertion comes with the same amount of evidence. 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.   That is the Biblical assertion.   God is the eternal self-sufficient self-existent supernatural being.  The Universe was created intentionally by God for His purposes which He reveals to mankind via the Bible.   This explanation fits the evidence.  Big Bang fails miserably because it has no cause and no power and also what we can understand about the Universe doesn't fit the scenario.

Largely for such reasons, many Darwinists concede that the Universe was created by a God, but a distant, uncaring God who threw the Universe together and then went on His way.   This is not a good answer philosophically, for why would the Creator go to the trouble of making an entire Universe only to leave it behind.   What did He have that drew Him away?   Did He need to take a nap of indeterminant length after all the work involved in Universe-making?  If you concede that you need a Creator God to make the Universe, how do you then deny the Bible?   Wouldn't it make sense that, if a Universe was made for us, the Creator would be involved in the ongoing process?    If you doubt that God created the Universe, how is it that He inspired the writers of the Bible to note the roundness of the Earth and the fact that we are apparently hung on space upon nothing?  How does he acurately describe the motion in space of specific start systems?  Check out this post.

Secular scientists like to claim that they have the truth, but if so why does the truth continually change?  The age of the Universe has grown by about 10 billions years since I was born.   Scientists have also changed their opinion of the age of the earth.   Botton line, there is no one Big Bang hypothesis that explains this Universe, they all have major problems and people will only accept it out of ignorance.   Anyone who looks carefully at any Big Bang hypothesis will quickly see the unexplained problems.

Secular scientitst not only keep changing ages of the Universe and the Earth, they also change their opinions on other issues.   Now, truly, there were not many flat Earth believers at any one time but scientists did manage to disprove that idea.   It took years for people like Copernicus to convince the world that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the reverse.  Newtonian physics was displaced to an extent by relativity which has had to make room for quantum mechanics.   I was also born before DNA was presented to the world and before the Miller-Urey experiments.

Darwin had a case...back then.  Not now.

Charles Darwin had a grandfather who was a determined atheist who was sure life had evolved itself somehow, even without knowing the method.   This superstition has been around since the early days of Greek axiomatic thinking and certainly had pagan roots as well.  His father was far more concerned about decorum and appearances and so was a church member in order to move freely in "respectable" society.   Meanwhile Charles experienced personal tragedies that made his opinion of God a very bad one.   How, he asked, could a loving God allow his beloved young daughter, Annie, to pass away after contracting scarlet fever and perhaps dying of tuberculosis?  He himself suffered various maladies as well and palpitations and boils and other signs of stress and overwork accompanied him to the grave.

Darwin actually culled together ideas expressed by Hutton and Wallace and Malthus and Bythe to formulate his eventual hypothesis of simple forms evolving into more complex forms.  He didn't try to prove that life came from non-life, as Pasteur and others had falsified that idea once and for all (we thought).   But Darwin wanted to come up with a way that evolution could happen and considered all kinds of mechanisms that might be plausible.  He understood that finch beaks could vary.  He knew from common animal husbandry that there was some kind of system that would allow for changes in organisms (although Mendel had not yet published his findings on genetics).  He finally settled on Blythe's description of natural selection and published.   Soon the scientific community became aware of the concept of natural mutation plus mutation  as a driver for evolution and an explanation for the development of existing creatures.

When Charles Darwin began publishing, the scientific community was in the process of accepting uniformitarianism as presented by Hutton and Lyell.   Scientists generally believed that the cell was made up of protoplasm, a simple substance, and probably something that developed in a simple way.  The geological column was presented to the world.   Mendelian genetics was born.   More and more fossils of strange-looking beasts were being discovered.  The Haeckel embroyo chart was presented to the world.   I cannot blame Darwin for being unscientific.  He was born to his quest.   He had a hunger to find an explanation for life which could do away with God and he did the best that he could.

But we know better now.   We know the cell is more complex than a modern factory and that a man has about 100 trillion cells, each of which are doing billions of functions every second.  We know we also carry about ten microbes for each cell, many of which are bacteria that help us digest food or are beneficial to us in some other way.  We are all little planets providing home to many symbiotic creatures and quite a few hitchhikers as well.   Charles Darwin would be absolutely staggered by the complexity of a simple e. coli bacteria, let alone a human being.  I cannot imagine he ever would have come up with his books and his hypothesis had he a clue about what the cell is and how it works and especially coming to understand the meaning and implications of DNA>

Don't try to use "Chemical Evolution" on creationists.

Pasteur was the last of a long line of scientists who tested and retested the hypothesis that life could in some way spontaneously generate.   The experimentation went all the way down to the level of microorganisms.   Because life cannot spontaneously generate, if you seal food free from microbes in a can unexposed to air, then microbes cannot enter in and the food will not spoil.  Pasteurization is the process that emerged as a result of Pasteur's experiments, although that is hardly all he accomplished.

Now Darwinists are trying to raise abiogenesis from the dead.   They have changed the name from "spontaneous generation" to "chemical evolution" as if, by changing the terminology the Law will go away.  When challenged on this, Darwinists will ask a creationists to prove that chemical evolution cannot happen.   Gee, thought Pasteur settled that long ago.   Aren't these Darwinists supposed to be scientists?  The Miller-Urey experiment only proved to science that it is incredibly difficult to use laboratory equipment to produce any portion of the ingredients for life and that these ingredients do not survive in the wild on their own.   There are hard chemical barriers to the development of the ingredients of life.   Besides that, if you could build a cell in a lab, by what means would you bring it to life?   Science doesn't know what "life" really is nor can they identify it as a force or energy of any particular kind.

Don't try to use DNA on creationists

Here is another area where thinking people will abandon Darwinism if they understand the situation.  When Watson and Crick discovered DNA and understood what it was, they were immediately dismayed.   Crick understood that DNA meant design and soon began to promote the concept of directed panspermia, the idea that life had been "seeded" on earth from some alien source.   Watson soon became something of a racist eccentric who found himself at odds with virtually every colleague and organization with which he had worked.  

No matter, DNA has been a field that continually discards Darwinist thought as it becomes better understood.   "Junk" DNA has proved to have functionality, ERVs turn out to be design features and so on and so forth.   DNA is a fantastic coding language using four characters (your computer uses only two) that transmits massive amounts of information, not only how to reproduce but also it contains all sorts of choices for variation of kind and the instructions not only how to build a new organism but also how to maintain the cell so that it does what it is supposed to do within the context of the organism.  

The components of DNA cannot naturally be produced in the wild.   Even if they could, they would not contain any information.   If you cannot speak Russian, it will do you no good to give you a cyrillic keyboard, for you will not know Russsian and will not be able to transmit messages thereby. 

Don't try to discuss information with creationists

Information is a pitfall for Darwinists.   They gag on the dictionary definition of information because they know that there is no natural source for information and therefore no explanation for the massive amount of information in DNA and in the cell.  "Natural selection plus mutation" is not an answer, it is a stuck-on-stupid answer.   If I ask you where a tree comes from, you wouldn't say "tree bark."  Natural selection is a designed function of the organism and we can pinpoint how it works within the cell.   Genetics allows us to predict to some degree what the children of a mating pair will look like but there will be variables that will occur by chance.  But all of these choices come from information already within the DNA string.  A broken place on the DNA string is not "new" and, if the same information is copied over again neither is that "new."   Never have Darwinists spotted new information entering the genome. 

The problem for Darwinists is that information is not material in form or substance.   I take a pencil and a writing tablet and weigh them.  I show them to you.   You see a blank page.   I have not really transmitted information to you, have I?   Now I write down "My dog has fleas." with the pencil and show you the pad.  You immediately comprehend the message.   Yet if I weigh the pencil and paper after the message they will weigh just what they did before I wrote.

We take a computer harddrive and put it in a computer after weighing it.   We then load the operating system and write all sorts of programs to the disk as well as downloading hundreds of pictures and hunfreads of MP3 music files until we have put 250 gigs of information on that harddrive.   If I take it out and weight it, care to guess how much heavier it will be?   You are right.   It will weigh the same.

If information has no natural source (and it doesn't) and it cannot be measured materially, then it must be non-material or supernatural.  Life is also not measurable and cannot be measured or defined as matter or energy.   Don't be fooled by Genetic Algorithms, as they cannot exist without a formal program being run on a computer with hardware, software and operating system.

Don't try to convince a creationist that there are "non-overlapping magisteria" when considering Truth

I don't know what state you are in.  Are you a fully committed atheopath who hates the concept of a God to Whom you must answer?   Then you will pay me no heed. 

Are you a Darwinist by education who has never really thought much on the subject?   I hope you give me a chance over the next week or two to convince you that Darwinism is impossible and indefensible.  The evidence for Darwinism is primarily marketing rather than product.

Are you a theistic evolutionist who thinks that science must be true and will trump the Bible?  Then you are building your house on sand rather than rock.   Don't you realize that once upon a time blood-letting was the scientific answer to a variety of ailments?   In fact some doctors used leeches and that is where the term Leeches being used for doctors comes from.  Science used to believe that several parts of the body were "vestigal" such as adenoids, tonsils, the appendix, the coccyx and the pineal gland.   Science now knows there is no such thing as a vestigal organ in the human body, they all have purpose.

The bottom line is this.   You either accept scripture as unchanging Truth that has been given to mankind and have a minsterial view of evidence.   When you examine evidence you keep in mind the superiority of Biblical truth and remember that God knows the Truth while man can only keep advancing uphill on that hill of knowledge that God has, in fact, built beforehand.   If you make the mistake of allowing science to have preeminence and make evidence magisterial and require the Bible to fit into the latest mold science has produced, you will find yourself continually revising and changing what "truth" is and sometimes will see it stood upon it's head.   Because science keeps learning and guessing and sometimes reaching out blindly into the darkness but God is Light and Truth and He is the Author of Logic and Reason Himself.

Portrait of Martin Luther
Image via Wikipedia
“But what about . . . the role of argument and evidence in knowing Christianity to be true?  I’ve already said that it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth.  Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role.  I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason.

“The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence.  The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.  In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate.  Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology.  Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding.  A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit’s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief.

“If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, then Christian belief is warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence.  Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant.”

— William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008), 47-48.


There will be trolls who will trot out the same old tired arguments on these topics and I ask you to carefully examine their arguments.   Has the Law of Biogenesis ever been broken?   Have any Laws of Thermodynamics been observed to have been broken?  Can the "building blocks" of life form naturally in the wild?  Who would have coded them, had they happened to have happened.  In fact, every creature has it's own DNA string.   Every "mother" cell lays out the framework for every child, so no matter what variety of thing it may be, it will be the same kind of the mother.   Has any organism ever been shown to defy this system?  Carefully examine the claims of Darwinists and in a day or so I will demonstrate some of the terrible flaws in logic Darwinists use to make false claims and fool people.    You will not be easily fooled, I trust!