Search This Blog

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Creation versus Evolution - Worldview determines your perception of truth...Part Two The Comments

On to the comments, example one.   I will intersperse remarks with this font and color so you do not confuse the commenter with my responses.

Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Charles Darwin wins the Indianapolis 500! Or does...

":A former druggie and drug dealer tells me I have no morals?


You never fail to amuse, Radar.

Very nice that I amuse you.  The point is that I am a FORMER criminal who has been reformed by the working of Christ in my life.   You would have no idea whatever that I ever took or sold drugs if I had not revealed it myself.  George Washington was formerly a loyal subject of England who became the brilliant general who led the colonies to win freedom from England and help found the United States.   Abraham Lincoln was a former political loser who never won an election but became President of the United States and the man who officially ended slavery in this nation.  George Washington Carver was a former slave who became a brilliant inventor, innovator, scientist, educator and inspiration to men of all colors and creeds.  Kurt Warner was the former failed quarterback prospect stocking grocery shelves who worked at becoming a truly great NFL quarterback, one who led three teams to the Super Bowl and won a championship for his team while playing the second half with broken ribs (not revealed to the press at the time).   Josh Hamilton was the baseball prospect whose career was derailed by his dependence upon drugs.  Former drug user Hamilton later became an American League batting champion and MVP and has led his team to consecutive American League pennants.  Notice a theme of men who trusted God making great changes and/or accomplishing great things in the face of failure and opposition?

You miss the point by so far you are upside down!  The power of Christ converted a guy who only looked out for number one and got away with whatever he could into a man who seeks to do the will of God.   How many people kick the needle, all other illegal drugs, alcoholism and cigarettes and sex outside of marriage to become a Christian elder and pillar of the community known by hundreds and thousands of people for doing good rather than harm?   I did not redeem or change myself, I just had to agree with God and let His power make the changes in me.

"With no explanation for existence, life, information or fantastic complexity and precise fine-tuning of the Solar System and the Universe,"

The first two are answered adequately by "Why not?"

"Why not?"   That is what you consider "science?"  I will tell you why not, because there is no evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the very existence of the Universe, let alone life, information or irreducibly complex systems and symbiotic relationships.   Might as well toss the Easter Bunny and Godzilla in there while you are at it.  Why not?  A Creator God who transcends the material has the power to create a Universe in which logical laws exist and designed organisms full of information exist because that God made sure that said Universe would provide a suitable habitat for mankind to both have a chance to comprehend the laws of the Universe and especially to be able to have a relationship with that Creator God.   God is an answer.  Why not?  A total cop-out!

The last is a matter of probability. "Life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex chemical system. And information arises naturally, without need of any hand to aid it.


What a fantastically ridiculous statement.  Let's take it apart:  The last is a matter of probability.   Then you have already agreed with me.   The probabilities of even one living organism arising by chance on Earth, even given the existence of Earth itself, is so remote that it is a statistical impossibility.   Just one.   You probably have about 100 trillion organisms living in you and on you.   Imagine all the organisms of all kinds found from over a mile above the surface of the Earth to the very deepest valleys of the oceans!   Here Woolf is shooting himself in the foot.   But it gets better...

"Life" is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex chemical system.  This is just about as unscientific a statement as a man can make.  The Law of Biogenesis states clearly that it has been proven by numerous experiments that life only comes from life.  The statement is science-y sounding gobbledygook!  What property of chemistry is "emergent" when the subject is life?  What a bunch of complete garbage!  Any scientist worth his salt will admit that there is no set of conditions found on Earth today that even begin to produce the raw materials for life.  In fact scientists know that even if the proper amino acids could overcome the many hurdles that stand as chemical barriers to their production, they would be racemic (half right-handed and half left-handed) and the chirality problem is insoluble.   DNA strings are made up of all left-handed components and, oh yes, they are full of information.   They are arranged in a very complex manner to transmit the code by which life is replicated and maintained and furthermore the process by which reproduction takes place is fantastically more complex than just a few amino acids bopping into each other.  The statement is a complete humbug.


And information arises naturally, without need of any hand to aid it.  Just like "Dumb and Dumber" was followed up by "Dumb and Dumberer" Jon Woolf then utters this statement!   Information just kind of pops into existence all by itself?   Really?  So the collected works of Shakespeare just fell from the sky?   James Michener didn't write all those books, they simply went *poof* and appeared on bookshelves in libraries around the world?  This is exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition of information:

in·for·ma·tion  (nfr-mshn)
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

infor·mation·al adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

So Information is associated with knowledge which is associated with intelligence which means that it requires a sentinent source.   If you are collecting data, the data itself may be the product of natural processes but it requires intellect to identify what to quantify and what conclusions to draw from that data.   In the case of organisms, it is necessary for God to have input the initial information into organisms and in fact it is also necessary for the organisms themselves to have begun intact.   DNA requires cells, cells require DNA and both require ATP Synthase production to exist and operate.   In fact far more than those three primary components of life are required to be in place and operational for life to exist and to reproduce.   The remarkable complexity and obvious coding and design involved in making an organic hardware/software/operating system/self-replicating/self-healing being is still beyond our ability to completely understand and yet despite the fact that there are myriad such creatures both prokaryote and eukaryote that are found pretty much everywhere on Earth.


Not sure what to say here.  Jon, the entire story of that message was in effect the disastrous consequences of mutation entering into the intended message.  Just as mutations are harmful to creatures and therefore there are complex systems in place intended to keep mutations from being passed on during the reproduction of organisms, this mistaken insertion combined with a mistaken reading of said message was an embarrassment to Admiral Halsey and all parties concerned.   DNA has stop codons that would be the equivalent to the "RR" portion of the message.  A properly working DNA decryption recognizes stop codons so that such a mistake would be unlikely to happen within an organism.   So Jon Woolf has inadvertently made fun of the very mechanism he thinks causes simple organisms to become more complex, mutations, which are actually mistakes, broken things, garbled messages - the kinds of things that tend to harm and not help.  Jon, again, you are shooting yourself in the foot.   You are out of feet!!!


Example two - Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Turning the tables and questioning Darwinists. Yo...


Radar, you're ranting again.

True transitional forms have to show the transitions of systems that must develop according to Darwinism in steps, like going from a bump on the head to an eye, or some way a woodpecker tongue could be seen to grow step by step while allowing the organism to exist.

This is exactly what the therapsid-to-mammal sequence shows. See also the transition from primitive archaeocete to modern mysticete, especially the changes in skull anatomy that moved the nares from the muzzle to the middle of the forehead.

Says you and what army?   Systems cannot evolve all at once, if they could evolve at all.  That Darwinists will take a bunch of skulls and try to line them up in some kind of order and then suggest they evolved that way is a primitive form of science indeed.   Give me an assortment of a few hundred dog skulls and I can line them up from small to large or from long to short muzzles with all the authority and observed evidence that Jon could cite for his statement above.  Yet I would simply be presenting a wide assortment of variation within kind.   He is telling you a story.  However, considering the catastrophic nature of the sedimentary layers, their lack of a coherent order and their multitudes of anomalies it is pretty obvious that the fossil layers are not what Darwinists claim and because fossil specimens are of different organisms rather than a continuum of slowly changing organisms they are not presenting transitional forms, Darwinists are just sorting and assigning according to their preferences rather than because of observed or observable evidence.  But all the fairy tales in the world will not cause a continuum of evolving organisms to be found.

Let's see the complex system of valves and chambers of the neck of the giraffe being evolved in the fossil record. 

 some fossils seem to preserve everything

a) soft tissues generally don't fossilize.

credit fossil jelly and living jelly

Yet we have fossil jellyfish and other soft-bodied organisms.   We have seen a great deal of partial fossilization of soft parts on various specimens and we have also found flesh and blood remains that are not even fossilized!  The fossil record becomes less friendly to Darwinism year by year.

flesh and blood remains of dinosaur 

b) the elaborate system of valves and chambers that exist in the giraffe's neck also exist in every other mammal living today, and presumably in every mammal that ever lived in the past.


Say WHAT??!!!  You think every mammal in existence has an elaborate system of valves and chambers to keep the blood pressure to the brain relatively constant?   That is like saying all mammals have a covering of quills like the porcupine or that all lizards are able to change their coloration to blend into the environment like chameleons.  The very unique giraffe is unlike virtually any other mammal.   Darwinists really have no explanation for their existence.  Lamarck once posited that they were ordinary mammals which kept stretching out their necks to reach leaves on higher tree branches.  But no matter what, very few mammals have anything even vaguely resembling the complex system of valves and chambers that keep the giraffe from either exploding its skull when drinking or from passing out when quickly raising its head. 

The Amazing Giraffe

What is so amazing about the Giraffe?

The 25 pound giraffe heart is probably the most powerful in the animal kingdom!  Bristol Foster commented in National Geographic on the giraffe’s heart: “To drive blood eight feet up the 500 pound neck to the head, the heart is exceptionally large and thick-muscled, and the blood pressure—twice or three times that of man—is probably the highest in any animal.”   But the brain is a very delicate structure which cannot stand high blood pressure. The elevated pressure on the brain should cause the giraffe to faint when he bends down to take a drink? Does he ‘blow his mind’? Fortunately, three design features were included in the giraffe to control this and related problems.

1. First, the giraffe was designed to know that it must spread his front legs apart in order to drink comfortably. This lowers the level of the heart somewhat and so reduces the difference in height from the heart to the head of the drinking animal. This results in excess pressure in the brain being less than if the legs were kept straight.

2. Second, the giraffe’s jugular vein was designed with a series of one-way check valves which immediately close when the head is lowered, preventing blood from flowing back down into the brain.  But what of the blood flow through the carotid artery from the heart to the brain?

3. A third design feature is the ‘wonder net’, a spongy tissue filled with numerous small blood vessels located near the base of the giraffe brain. The arterial blood first flows through this net of vessels before it reaches the brain. When the giraffe stoops to drink, the wonder net controls the blood flow so that the full pressure is not exerted on the brain.

Equally amazing is the fact the blood does not pool in the legs. This is prevented by an extremely tough skin and an inner fascia.  This skin combination has been studied extensively by NASA scientists in their development of gravity-suits for astronauts.

How can this be?

If the giraffe evolved, along with developing a longer neck, it had to generate a huge heart to push blood up the neck, special valves to maintain its blood pressure, and an anti-gravity suit to resist the extreme pressure that is routinely produced. Did these structures come about merely by coincidence?

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonning wrote in March of 06” “No data from giraffes then (in Darwin’s time) existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now.  The spotty evidence gives no insight into how the long-necked giraffe species arose.”

The most likely conclusion must obviously lead away from evolution. The giraffe’s amazing abilities are a testament to design in the animal kingdom. From its long neck to its anti-gravity-suit skin, the giraffe’s diverse nature defies the theory of evolution, and embraces the opposite concept—design.  When design is evident then the obvious conclusion is THERE MUST BE A DESIGNER.  It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God as designer and creator of our amazing world.

Courtesy Just2Amazing! blog

If you have wet sediments or newly formed-still pliable sediments and there is an massive influx of magma shooting up through them, voila, LIPS.

Wrong-o. Do some research, Radar. Learn what Large Igneous Provinces really are and the form they really take. Those LIPs known as 'traps' and 'flood basalts,' such as the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps, are clearly made up of numerous extrusive lava flows deposited one atop another to depths of hundreds of meters, interspersed with fossiliferous sedimentary strata.

Again, LIPS and BIFS are catastrophic formations.   The Noahic Flood and the volatile post-Flood Ice Age were responsible for producing the sedimentary rocks and also innumerable fascinating canyons, buttes, mesas and etc.   I see no reason to doubt that LIPS and BIFS were formed primarily during the time the floodwaters were abating and during the dynamic post-Flood period when the sedimentary layers were mudrock and capable of being twisted like taffy or easily penetrated by a lava flow or flows, in fact, far more likely to be the conditions that allow for the formation of such as LIPS and BIFS as opposed to what we observe today.


Example three - Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "Thermodynamics versus Darwinist Mythology. Read a...

"The conditions we see on Earth now and can predict about in the past would not tend to allow for it because it appears that the atmosphere has always been an oxygen-rich environment and one in which water is present.

Nope. The existence of certain minerals such as uraninite in Archaean strata demonstrate that at the time those strata were laid down, Earth's atmosphere was anoxic.

Nope squared.   Evidence of the presence of an oxygenated atmosphere is found in every rock layer.  Besides that, there are steps in the theoretical assembly-by-chance of the components of life that are threatened by oxygen and steps where oxygen is required.   How do you get away from that problem? 

Oh, and Gentry's nonsense about polonium radiohalos was conclusively refuted more than twenty years ago

Rather, your source nonsense about polonium radiohalos was poorly researched and thoroughly refuted by extensive testing as scientists followed up on Gentry's hypothesis and found that further research supported radiohalo formation as evidence for granites being formed in periods of from days to perhaps tens of years.

As for the subject of thermodynamics: it's really fun to watch you and your creationist pals claim to know something about thermo, and then argue with a straight face that reproduction and growth in organisms are violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

Ignorance is bliss.  When it comes to Thermodynamics I suppose Darwinists consider the subject whenever they need a shot of it.  Every aspect of Darwinist teaching from the supposed Big Bang (which is almost entirely composed of supposed forces and matter that has never been observed and begins with a singularity that cannot be explained and admits to including Planck Time in which all the laws of physics are to be ignored) to the formation of stars and galaxies to the formation of the Solar System to the formation of life and the source of information and the alleged ascent of life from a simple one-celled mythical progenitor to the untold billions of billions of various organisms extant today is a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Dr. Jeff Miller's article on Thermodynamics which you laugh at is a very logical and orderly destruction of your worldview's foundation.  I think I detect a whistle while passing a graveyard rather than a genuine laugh, since the joke is on you.

Let's go ahead and pretend we accept the naturalistic materialistic point of view.  No God, no purpose or intention to the Universe, it just happened to happen.   Thermodynamics tells us nothing is being created or destroyed.   How did the Universe create itself in violation of that law?  Cue Jeff Miller for a follow-up post!

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!”

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Many in the atheistic community have realized various problems with their theories in light of what we know about the laws of thermodynamics. In order for atheism to be a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe, matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation).
Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the first option is impossible, and the First Law implies that the second option is impossible (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the origin of the Universe). Upon grudgingly coming to this conclusion, but being unwilling to yield to the obvious alternative (i.e., Someone outside of the Universe put matter here), some have tried to find loopholes in the laws that will allow for their flawed atheistic ideologies to survive.

A common assertion being raised today by some is that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and therefore cannot be used to prove that God played a role in the origin of the Universe. More specifically, some question whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary; Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). In their well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[W]e of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233). Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense” (as quoted in Holloway, 2010).

What if the Universe is not an isolated system? How would that fact impact the creation/evolution controversy? First of all, the creationist has always argued that the Universe is not an isolated system, or at least has not always been one. According to the creationist, in the beginning, God created the Universe’s system barrier, then crossed it and placed energy and matter within the system—thus making the Universe non-isolated. So, recognizing that the Universe is, in fact, not an isolated system would really mean that some evolutionists are starting to move in the right direction in their understanding of the Universe! Acquiescence of this truth by atheists in no way disproves the existence of God. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Admission that the Universe is not isolated does not help the case for atheism, but rather tacitly acknowledges a creator of sorts. [More on this point later.]

What this admission would do, however, is make some of the creationists’ arguments against atheism less applicable to the discussion about the existence of God—specifically some of the uses of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the Universe as a whole. For instance, if the Universe is not an isolated system, it means that something or someone outside of the Universe can open the proverbial box that encloses the Universe and put matter and energy into it. Therefore, the Universe could be eternal, as long as something/someone is putting more usable energy into the box to compensate for the energy loss and counter entropy. Thus, the argument against the eternality of matter by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics could potentially be null and void. Also, with a non-isolated system, it could be argued that the original, imaginary pre-Big Bang ball (which never actually existed—since the Big Bang is flawed [see May, et al., 2003) was not eternal in its existence. Further, it could be contended that it did not have to spontaneously generate in order to explain its existence. Rather, energy and matter could have been put here from a source outside of this Universe other than God.

From a purely scientific perspective, one of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g., multiple universes outside of our own). And yet, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention? Stephen Hawking has advanced such an idea, but he, himself, recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). Speculation, conjecture, assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.

What does the scientific evidence actually convey today? We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is a fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:
  • “Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).
  • A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane,, 1996, p. 551, italics in original).
The truth is, if one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, yet desires to accept the laws of science, one must conjure up other options for how the Universal box could have been legally opened and its contents altered. Envision several atheists sitting around a table speculating options, no matter how wild, in order to avoid conceding the existence of God, and you will have a clear picture of how many in the scientific community operate today. “Okay, people. How did we get here? Think!” “Other universes?” “Maybe.” “Nothing put us here?” “Not bad.” “Aliens?” “Why not?” “The God of the Bible?” “Shut your mouth. You are unscientific. Leave the room.” How can evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking safely postulate the existence of alien creators without being laughed out of the spotlight, while creationists get expelled from the scientific community for recognizing the reasonable answer to the matter of origins (Stein and Miller, 2008; BBC News, 2010)?

Ironically, when the atheistic community asserts alleged creative agents outside the Universe, they tacitly acknowledge a creator of some sort. What is the difference between these concessions and the true Creator? Why not accept the God of the Bible? The answer is obvious. Their brand of designer comes packaged without the demands and expectations that come with belief in God. Very convenient—but sad and most certainly unscientific.

Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”

The truth is, the scientific evidence leads unbiased truth-seekers to the conclusion that there simply must be a Creator. How do we know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth? No one has ever been able to document an exception to them (except when divine miracles have occurred). They always hold true. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe? As Borgnakke and Sonntag articulate in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved.... [W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 116-220, emp. added).
There has been no verifiable evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated throughout the Universe. Sure, there has been speculation, conjecture, and theory that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. Granted, atheists may cloud the air when they blow forth their unreasonable, unproven, jargon-filled, imaginary fairy-dust theories, but when the fairy-dust settles, the laws of thermodynamics still declare the truth to all who will listen (Psalm 19:1). The scientific evidence shows that there is unmistakable order and design in the Universe. Design implies a Designer. The God of the Bible. Now that’s scientific.


BBC News (2010), “Hawking Warns Over Alien Beings,” April 25,

Benford, Gregory (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial).

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Fishbane, Paul M., Stephen Gasiorowicz, and Stephen T. Thornton (1996), Physics for Scientists and Engineers (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), second edition.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,”

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May,

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April,

Senapati, M.R. (2006), Advanced Engineering Chemistry (New Delhi: Laxmi Publications), second edition.

Shukman, David (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News,

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Van Wylen, Gordon J. and Richard Sonntag (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley and Sons), third edition.

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.


A Darwinist walks into a bar.   He immediately begins reaching for and beginning to pick up an apparently imaginary glass.   

The bartender asks him, "What are you doing, mate?"

The Darwinist replies, "Just providing the proper conditions for a Guinness Stout to spontaneously generate."

The bartender thinks on that.  "Well let's just let us have your wallet and we'll see what we can evolve?"

The Darwinist agrees.  The bartender takes the wallet.   After several minutes the Darwinist asks about his wallet and/or his Stout?

"Sorry, mate, not yet.   But you have an infinite amount of time to spend, right?  So no worries!"

Creation versus Evolution - Worldview determines your perception of truth...or your allegiance to a lie!

In part two of this post (in other words, two posts on one day), I will publish some comments by one of the commenters that are 'regulars' that reveal the unscientific viewpoint of Darwinists.   His remarks are fairly typical of the Darwinists who comment so I just took a quick sampling of three recent comments to use in illustrating the main points.

First I will make an assertion about worldviews. The most fundamental aspect of any worldview is whether that worldview does or does not consider that God created the Universe as a given.   You either cite God or some version of "It just happened."

"There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!” - Jeff Miller, PhD article in part two

A Bible perspective on worldviews

One of the most famous persons of the Old Testament is the man chosen by God to ensure that the first five books of the Bible would be recorded in written form and saved for posterity - Moses.   The story of Moses begins in Exodus chapter 2 with his birth and the unusual circumstances by which a Hebrew child could become possibly a heir to the throne of Pharaoh himself introduce us to the first third of his life as Egyptian royalty and then he would be revealed to be a confused man (being Hebrew by birth and Egyptian by rank) who wound up murdering an Egyptian for beating a Jew identified as "one of his brethren" (Exodus 2:11).  Fleeing for his very life, Moses became joined to the house of the "priest of Midian" as a result of his kindness to the daughters of that priest by helping them water their flocks, withstanding some shepherds who had bullied them away from the water.   Moses was obviously a strong man but one without sure direction who had left the land of his birth and both nations which might have claimed him as their own.   It was at this time that he uttered the words that Robert Heinlein would borrow for the title of his most famous novel, "Stranger in a Strange Land."

Moses was now married to the daughter of the priest of Midian, living in Midian and tending flocks of sheep.   He'd lived a life of twists and turns but was now settled in to a new life, the past left behind. 

Exodus chapter 3 begins - Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.  And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.  Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn."

This particular verse is meaningful to me, as it reveals an aspect of the character of Moses that mirrors my own and many of us who came to Christianity as adults.   The typical shepherd wouldn't leave his flock to go look at a bush that appeared to be burning for no good reason.   He would keep on doing his normal routine so as to not lose track of any of the sheep or leave them unprotected against predators, causing him extra work and/or grief.  He would keep his eyes on his job, his material existence depended upon shepherding those sheep.  But Moses was willing to see and believe something more than the natural flow of life.  He was willing to consider the supernatural.   Because he was willing, then in verse 4 -

So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” 


God drew the attention of Moses by revealing something supernatural within the natural, a sign that there is more than the ordinary material world.   Moses needed to be willing to both see this and respond to it.   Once Moses responded to the evidence of the supernatural, then God began his dialogue and relationship with Moses, telling Moses that he would lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and revealed His Name in verses 13-15-

Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”  Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

Jesus Christ identified Himself clearly to the Jews in John chapter 8.  The chapter is famed for the story of the woman "taken in sin", a trap laid by the Pharisees to force Christ to judge the woman and condemn her to death or to decline to follow the Law.  In fact, the Law required that both a man and woman caught in adultery were, if charged, to both face the same fate which would be to be stoned to death.  So the Pharisees were providing a false challenge to Jesus and the Law.  But Jesus simply stated that whoever was sinless among them must cast the first stone.  None dared to pretend they were free of sin and, since the accusers all declined to punish the woman,  John 8 10-12 states -

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Then a dialogue broke out between the Pharisees and Jesus and witnessed by onlookers, including His disciples.  The Pharisees sought to catch Christ in some kind of misstatement and Jesus used the opportunity to assure the listeners that He was indeed the Christ.  First see verses 28-40 -

Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.  And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”  As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.  And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.  And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.  Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
“I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.  I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”
They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.  But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

The Pharisees knew that Jesus was saying that Satan and not Abraham was their father and they were struck to the heart and angry. Others listening were being convinced that Jesus truly was the Son of God.  This is a turning point in the ministry of Christ and also the plans of the Pharisees.  The discussion would soon come to that very subject.  Continuing with verses 41-47 with Jesus speaking first-

"You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.  Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.  You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.  But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.  Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?  He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

As the chapter is coming to an end, verses 56-58 bring Jesus Christ to identify Himself specifically with the God of Moses -

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

No Jew would ever say, "I am." Jahweh, Anglicized as Jehovah, is the Name by which God Himself used to identify and describe Himself to Moses.  Jews would say "I a carpenter" or "I a priest" but would never say that particular phrase, as it was God's Name and no ordinary man would dare use it or speak it.  When Jesus said this He was intentionally telling his followers, his enemies and those not yet decided that He was the Christ, the Son of God, in no uncertain terms.  The phrase is ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi) in the Koine Greek in which John was originally written but Jesus in fact spoke in either Aramaic or Hebrew during his ministry and to this particular audience in the Temple certainly said the Hebrew word Jahweh =  אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה

So now we come to the worldviews of today.   Christians believe Jesus spoke truth when he claimed to be Christ, the Son of God, the Lamb of God come to save mankind and restore us to relationship with God.  We heard and believed when we turned away from the material world and both saw and were drawn to Christ by a burning bush at some point in our lives.  There are those who have not believed on Christ but still recognize that there is indeed a burning bush that indicates a supernatural component to life.   We will call them Theists for the sake of simplicity.

Arrayed on the other side are those who represent the modern Pharisees of the world.   They turn away from the Law of Biogenesis, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the overwhelming evidence of design and intentionality and information in the Universe at large and specifically the world of organisms, all of which are big burning bushes that should catch their attention and cause them to abandon the folly of an entire world that created itself from nothing.  Why?

Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.  You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 

It has been my experience that the most strident defenders of Darwinism are not simply atheistic, they are Atheopaths, haters of God and consequently haters of truth.  They will say things they know are false, use evidence they know is not true, anything they can to support their failed hypothesis and continue to fool the ignorant and unschooled and brainwash the young by linking arms and joining ranks, all singing the same old songs extolling fairy tales and fallacies.   Darwinists must be liars in order to defend their beliefs and thus they align themselves with enemies of God.  Scientism is the enemy of Science and Darwinism is the enemy of truth and common sense.  The sad fact is that Darwinists bring their worldview with them to work and pretend that they have no worldview at all.  They impose their personal worldview of naturalistic materialism on science and pretend that it is a vital component of science.  This is folly and I call it Scientism.   Wikipedia (hardly a friend to Christianity) defines it:

Web definitions
  • Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. ...

Another source would say the following (the entire page includes references noted in this excerpt):

Scientism and atheism

Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and Scientism support each other. Followers of Scientism do not believe in God and therefore use atheism as the base of their religion, and atheists use pseudoscience to support their claims, as well as as evidence against God and the Bible.[2]

Scientism and pseudoscience

Since Scientists have an agenda to use "science" to support their denial of God, their techniques usually rely on pseudoscience. For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof.[3]

Science as a religion

Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.[4]
Believers of Scientism deny the existence of God, and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be as "science" to replace God as the source for infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful.

Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional morality, so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".[5]
Part two will be presented as a completely separate post...

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Hawking is wrong, Philosophy is not dead and neither is God.

One of the basic lessons of journalism is that a news story needs to answer questions.   The most common questions are answered by considering the five W's and the H.   Who, what, when, where, why and how? The opinion of this blogger is that every responsible person must ask these questions about life.   Your worldview is essential to all the important decisions you make in life. Your very life depends upon what you believe.  If you believe in God and have trusted Christ as your Savior, your future with God is so bright you need to wear shades.  Your current knowledge of God will increase dramatically as you enter into the bliss of living with God in a form that can comprehend the supernatural.   I am looking forward to seeing God face to face, as the Bible states.  

If you do not believe in God and do not trust Christ, you are gambling that there is no life after death and you will not suffer an eternal separation from God and the agony of receiving a just sentence for your sins against God and man.  It has been said that there is a God-shaped hole in every human heart.   Only God can fill that space.  Drugs and drinking and sex and money and fame and things can never do the job.  The wisest man on Earth, Solomon, tried abandoning God and seeking happiness in worldly pursuits and possessions.   He had the power and wealth to have anything he wanted, to take any woman, to experience whatever he chose to pursue and discovered that such things of the world are all "vanity" when compared to the things of God. This is the theme of an entire book of the Bible that Solomon wrote, inspired by God , Ecclesiastes.  

It begins with...

"The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity." 

...and ends by asserting that... 

"So this is the end of the matter; all has been heard. Worship God and keep God’s commandments because this is what everyone must do.  God will definitely bring every deed to judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or bad." 

The consideration of such things is called "Philosophy."   Let's define our terms by definition:

noun /fəˈläsəfē/ 
philosophies, plural
  1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline

  2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it
    • - Schopenhauer’s philosophy
  3. The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience
    • - the philosophy of science
  4. A theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior
    • - don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed, that's my philosophy

It is painful in the extreme to read some of the comments I get on this blog.  Next post I intend to print two or three of the most ludicrous of recent comments, comments that are either remarkably ignorant, downright stupid or intentional lies.  By now longtime readers will know that the comments thread is dominated by mostly anonymous commenters making false claims, asking the same ten or fifteen questions over and over or linking to sites run by ideologues more interested in advancing their worldview than actually inspecting evidence or seeking truth.  Wait until the next post, I promise you that it will be an eye-opener!  

However, the present proclamations of Scientism are hardly better. For instance, if you are an atheist you must account for existence in some way.   The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that nothing is being created or destroyed.   But they also reveal that the Universe is running downhill.  Energy is being converted into entropy.  Everything is going from order to disorder.  Therefore the Universe had a start and it will have an end.  Since every test of Thermodynamics has supported the laws without exception, no real scientist denies them.  But Darwinists try to sneak past them in order to support their ridiculous claims.  Let's make this clear - if there is no force in the natural world that can either create or destroy matter, then a supernatural explanation is necessary.   Furthermore, if the natural world is inexorably moving from order to disorder, how can you believe in a hypothesis that presumes that untold billions upon billions of accidents would all move organisms (not to mention big clouds of dust) from disorder to order?

Now I am going to be straight with my readers, after years of reading the array of Darwinists trying to explain their way out of this conundrum, it has become downright ugly.   Supposedly "brilliant" guys like Stephen Hawking make the ridiculous claim that gravity formed the Universe.  Excuse me, you need a Universe for there to be any such force as gravity so gravity cannot create the Universe.  He also tries to suggest that "M-theory" explains the existence of the Universe.   Has this "theory" been tested and proven?  No.  In fact, it is entirely a theoretical construct.   It is less real than the current Big Bang explanation, in which approximately 96% of the energy and matter do not exist and there is no explanation at all for the singularity at the beginning of said bang.  Now saying that nothing created everything by no means or method, entirely by chance and in opposition to known scientific law (Thermodynamics) is beyond ignorant and goes right to stupid.   You would not make an advance purchase of a product that first has no factory to produce it and second you would only get 4% of the product if it was ever produced, right?  So why would you believe in a Big Bang? 

But Hawking goes beyond stupid and declares (I am not making this up) "Philosophy is dead!"  Proof:

Stephen Hawking tells Google ‘philosophy is dead’

Physicist Stephen Hawking has told Google's Zeitgeist conference that philosophers have not kept up with science and their art is dead

Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said.

“Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

In a 40-minute speech, Prof Hawking said that the new “M Theory” of the universe was the “unified theory Einstein was hoping to find”. He compared the idea to the computer programme Google Earth, saying it was a “map” of theories, but added that a new, bigger Hadron Collider the size of the Milky Way was needed to collect more data to prove it. 

“This technology is some way off,” he said, “and I don't think even Google could afford to build it.”

Uhm, would anyone care to enlighten Hawking that he is actually sharing his own "philosophy" in the course of asserting that philosophy is dead?  It is about as dumb as writing a book that declares that books are a thing of the past, or driving around in an automobile while declaring that automobiles are defunct!  Is he really that clueless?   Remarkable foolishness must sell because Hawking makes a lot of money writing books that assert things he cannot begin to prove.   But when you share your philosophy with us and that philosophy states that "philosophy is dead" then you are at a new level of dumb.  

Hawking is also depending upon a theory that he declares explains things and yet it cannot even be tested.   It is no credit to the memory of Albert Einstein to be referenced in connection with such unsupported speculations.  Einstein used evidence and worked out his equations with little "fudging" as opposed to Hawking's fairy tales.   Einstein would not consider such a thing "found."  M-Theory has about the same amount of "proof" as does the Easter Bunny.    "This technology is some way off?"   The check is in the mail,  too.  Really, we mean it!   In any event, philosophy is NOT DEAD and as long as men draw breath it will continue to exist.  So that is out of the way.   



Most reasonable people agree that the Universe encompasses all of the natural material existence we can perceive.  We can measure things by three dimensions physically and a fourth dimension would be time, which Einstein was able to show can seem to move at different rates but his calculations also made it certain that man cannot travel back in time nor can he skip ahead...we cannot traverse time.   So we are bound by four dimensions to be held within this Universe and we cannot perceive any other.   So if someone tells you that there are other Universes, again, there is more proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is any evidence at all for another Universe and in fact, by definition, there cannot be more than one:

u·ni·verse  (yn-vûrs)
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics See population.

[Middle English, from Old French univers, from Latin niversum, from neuter of niversus, whole : nus, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European roots + versus, past participle of vertere, to turn; see wer-2 in Indo-European roots.]

By the way, if some Darwinist tells you that there are infinite Universes and we just happen to live in the one in which all the impossible accidents that are Darwinism and fine-tuning exist, remind them that in an all possible Universes scenario we would have one with a transcendent and all-powerful Creator God, which then cancels out all the other possibilities and puts us right back where we are now.   The only explanation (I am skipping ahead to the end of the movie here) for existence and life and information and the Universe is that God created. 


We are within the Universe. We are on the Earth.  The Earth is very possibly at the center of the Universe (judging by red shifts, among other things), within and near the end of a spiral arm of our galaxy which allows us to observe most of the rest of the Universe but still not right on the edge so we are protected from the dangers of being out in the middle of space.   We are revolving around our Sun, a rare form of star, and are shielded from the most dangerous rays of our own Sun by our magnetic field and atmosphere and from most random objects by several large planets that orbit farther out from the Sun and provide gravity wells and numerous moons that will stop the vast majority of large objects from without our Solar System from getting close to Earth.   Not only are all the laws of physics absolutely perfect for the existence of life on Earth, we are in the optimal position within the Solar System and by distance from the Sun and with the perfect Moon that is perfectly placed to not only provide a system of keeping track of time but especially to provide tides which work to both cleanse and enliven the oceans.   In fact the precision of the fine-tuning of scientific laws and our place within the Universe and galaxy and Solar System is simply stunning.   I have only mentioned a very few examples.


This is a subject of much dissension in the scientific community.   Long-agers believe that the Universe is around 13.5 Billion years old (this time frame keeps changing, by the way).  They point to the distance in light years from us to other objects observed in space and conclude that the Universe is quite ancient.   On the other hand, when they try to do the math for a Big Bang which would have produced a Universe (so explosions BUILD THINGS instead of blowing them to pieces?) they cannot come close to an explanation.   Every square peg is faced with a round hole.   The background radiation is wrong.   The total energy and entropy we can detect is very wrong.  The shape of the Universe is wrong.   The movement of the individual celestial objects is wrong.   Other than the problem of a bi-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ig Universe that would seem to therefore be old, creation fits the evidence far better.

Additionally, all the planets of the Solar System appear to be quite young.   There is no Darwinist explanation for the formation of any of them that accounts for their characteristics.  Gas giants should not be able to exist, there are planets with magnetic fields that should not be there, planets that are still producing more heat than they receive from the Sun, moons that have active volcanoes and many other anomalies.  The Sun could not have been our Sun for untold millions of years for life would not have been possible on Earth (read about the Young Faint Sun Paradox).    Also, we can prove that the Moon is quite young.

Bible-believers adhere to the assertion of God that He made the Universe about 7,000 years ago.   In fact the Genesis account does indicate that waters were the first materials of the Universe, that light was created before the celestial objects themselves and that God stretched or is stretching the Universe.   Since the Genesis account is a description given to mankind about the creation of everything, it is reasonable to accept the idea that the concept of light being made before the sources of light could mean that, from the point of reference (Earth), the objects made by God were not perceived until after they were made because God made them far enough from us to keep us from harm and then stretched space so that they are now millions of light years away.   It is also possible that God made the light itself and then the sources that would continue emitting the light and THEN stretched space.   Certainly the evidence we can detect tells us that space appears to have been stretched out and perhaps may still be being stretched.   Carmelian Theory integrates the evidence revealed by science with the evidence related to us from the Bible.

Funny how the population of mankind fits the sigmoidal graph that typifies population growth if there was a worldwide flood that ended about 4300 years ago with only Noah's family available to repopulate the Earth.  Naturally the Darwinists begin to dispute the basics of population science when it does not fit their pet worldview.   In fact I often make posts about dating methods and you can research posts on radiohalo dating and the helium-in-zircons problem and I promise you two things - I will present scientific evidence and commenters will give very bad explanations or ludicrous links in response.   Do you really think that granitic zircons still contain helium because such rocks were subjected to temperatures at the dry ice level for most of Earth's history?   That is the kind of "answer" Darwinists will give you.  I hate to get into the Acambaro Figurines right now but Darwinists have no answer to this problem and can only resort to lies or the assertions of a proven con man named DiPeso.  

In any event a creation event around 7,000 years ago makes more sense the more you know about all the evidence available and not just what the Darwinist propagandists tell you.


Darwinists really cannot touch this question.   They have no why at all.  There is no why for them, for there is no reason or purpose to naturalistic materialism and in fact absolutely no basis for believing that we make choices or that we are even here or can depend on what our brains seem to tell us.   To quote Dr. Will Provine:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

So if we have no free will neither can we depend upon what we seem to think because we think that we make decisions and exert that will.  This means that not any theory, any proof, any law and in fact no assertion at all can be supported by a Darwinist because he has no foundation for his beliefs or statements.   If we evolved by chance and with no purpose, then the driver to make us what we are is entirely based on survivability and nothing else.   How can we know the random firings of our brains are producing coherent thought that means anything?   How do we know that we even exist?   Perhaps your assumption that you are real, have thoughts and a body are simply a temporary hallucination randomly produced that will end within a few seconds and there will be no one to know or care about it.

Dr. Provine simply takes Darwinism to the logical conclusion that, if you remove God, you remove life after death, you take away any foundation for ethics at all or any possibility that there is a "WHY?"   If you are a Darwinist, there is no why.   There is also no right or wrong.   There is no foundation for any belief system that can be logically defended.   How ironic is it that one of the only truthful Darwinists would actually tell the truth about Darwinism when he himself saw no reason to be concerned about honesty?

This is why it was believers in God who were the progenitors of modern science.   Men who believed that a Logical God has made everything therefore believed one could discover logical laws by which things behave, logical and repeatable experiments could reveal scientific laws that could be built upon to establish more laws, make more observations and thus advance human learning and accomplishments.

God tells us He created us out of love and to have fellowship with us, to share the joy and glory of eternal life in fellowship with Him, so that we can appreciate Him and live forever with Him.   Darwinists have no why, they cannot begin to tell you why or defend any purpose for existence other than to please themselves, very often at the expense of others.  They will glibly say, "why not?" They will find out from God Himself!  The Walking Dead is not only a campy zombie series, it is an apt description of the typical Darwinist, doomed to experience eternal death but temporarily walking - for now.


The God of the Bible asserts that He made all things, He tells us the basic order of creation in Genesis 1 on up to 2:3 and then with 2:4 He relates the human-specific information He wanted us to know about the first couple.  For those who are not Bible scholars, the chapter and verse we use to navigate the Bible were added by translators to make the Bible easier for us to locate and remember the exact location of certain texts but are not part of the original books.   If I was in charge of assigning chapters then chapter two would begin with the fourth verse, since there is a shift in point of view and purpose.   Those who deny the veracity of the Bible make the mistake of claiming the first two chapters of Genesis are two different versions of the same story.   No, they are quite different in purpose, since the first is the order of creation and the second is a description of the Garden of Eden and specific information about Adam and Eve.

God's description of the order of creation and His later assertions about the planet Earth, about the stretching of the heavens and that planets are hung upon nothing are nicely laid out in this article:

Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?

The Bible is the history book of the universe. It tells us how the universe began and how it came to be the way it is today.

The Bible is much more than just a history book, however; it was written by inspiration of God. The Lord certainly understands how this universe works; after all, He made it. So His Word, the Bible, gives us the foundation for understanding the universe.

It has been said that the Bible is not a science textbook. This is true, of course, and it’s actually a good thing. After all, our science textbooks are based on the ideas of human beings who do not know everything and who often make mistakes. That’s why science textbooks change from time to time, as people discover new evidence and realize that they were wrong about certain things.

The Bible, though, never changes because it never needs to. God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right. When the Bible talks about geology, it’s correct. When Scripture addresses biology or anthropology, it’s also right.

What does the Bible teach about astronomy? Let’s take a look at some of the things the Bible has to say about the universe. We will see that the Bible is absolutely correct when it deals with astronomy.

The Earth Is Round 


The Earth The Bible indicates that the earth is round. One verse we can look at is Isaiah 40:22, where it mentions the “circle of the earth.” From space, the earth always appears as a circle since it is round. This matches perfectly with the Bible.

Another verse to consider is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the earth is round.

The Earth Floats in Space 


  • The Hindus believe the earth to be supported on the backs of four elephants, which stand on the shell of a gigantic tortoise floating on the surface of the world’s waters.
  • The earth of the Vedic priests was set on 12 solid pillars; its upper side was its only habitable side.
  • The Altaic people of Northern Siberia affirm that their mighty Ulgen created the earth on the waters and placed under it three great fish to support it.
  • The Tartars and many of the other tribes of Eurasia believe the earth to be supported by a great bull.
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7, which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This might make you think of God hanging the earth like a Christmas tree ornament, but hanging it on empty space. Although this verse is written in a poetic way, it certainly seems to suggest that the earth floats in space; and indeed the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs upon nothing, just as the Bible suggests.

The Expansion of the Universe 


The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God is stretching it out, causing it to expand.

Now, this verse must have seemed very strange when it was first written. The universe certainly doesn’t look as if it is expanding. After all, if you look at the night sky tonight, it will appear about the same size as it did the previous night, and the night before that.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. So it must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe.

I wonder if any Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22 to read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe. When the secular world believes one thing and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong. But God is never wrong.

Most astronomers today believe that the universe is indeed expanding. In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters; this indicates that the entire universe is expanding.

You can think of this like points on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all the points move farther away from each other. If the entire universe was being stretched out, the galaxies would all be moving away; and that is what they actually appear to be doing.

It is fascinating that the Bible recorded the idea of an expanding universe thousands of years before secular science came to accept the idea.

The Age of the Universe 


Scripture also addresses the age of the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six days (Exodus 20:11). We know from the genealogies and other events recorded in Scripture that this creation happened about 6,000 years ago.

Yet, this is quite different from what most schools teach. Most secular scientists believe that the universe is many billions of years old, and they usually hold to the bigbang theory. The big bang is a secular speculation about the origin of the universe; it is an alternative to the Bible’s teaching. The big bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe without God (see the next chapter, “Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?”).

People who believe in the big bang usually interpret the evidence according to their already-existing belief in the big bang. In other words, they just assume that the big bang is true; they interpret the evidence to match their beliefs. Of course, the Bible can also be used to interpret the evidence. And since the Bible records the true history of the universe, we see that it makes a lot more sense of the evidence than the big bang does.
Now let’s look at some facts about the universe regarding its age. We will see that the evidence is consistent with 6,000 years but doesn’t make sense if we hold to the big bang.

Of course, big bang supporters can always reinterpret the evidence by adding extra assumptions. So the following facts are not intended to “prove” that the Bible is right about the age of the universe. The Bible is right in all matters because it is the Word of God. However, when we understand the scientific evidence, we will find that it agrees with what the Bible teaches. The evidence is certainly consistent with a young universe.

Recession of the Moon

The moon is slowly moving away from the earth. As the moon orbits the earth, its gravity pulls on the earth’s oceans, which causes tides. The tides actually “pull forward” on the moon, causing the moon to gradually spiral outward. So the moon moves about an inch and a half away from the earth every year. That means that the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past.
Recession of the Moon

For example, 6,000 years ago, the moon would have been about 800 feet closer to the earth (which is not much of a change, considering the moon is a quarter of a million miles away). So this “spiraling away” of the moon is not a problem over the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the earth and moon were over four billion years old (as evolutionists teach), then we would have big problems. In this case, the moon would have been so close that it would actually have been touching the earth only 1.4 billion years ago. This problem suggests that the moon can’t possibly be as old as secular astronomers claim.

Secular astronomers who assume that the big bang is true must use other explanations to get around this. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon was receding was actually smaller in the past. But this is an extra assumption needed to make their billions-of-years model work. The simplest explanation is that the moon hasn’t been around for that long. The recession of the moon is a problem for a belief in billions of years but is perfectly consistent with a young age.

Magnetic Fields of the Planets 


Many of the planets of the solar system have strong magnetic fields. These fields are caused by electrical currents that decay with time. We can even measure this decay of the earth’s magnetic field: it gets weaker and weaker every year. If the planets were really billions of years old (as evolutionists believe), then their magnetic fields should be extremely weak by now. Yet they are not. The outer planets of the solar system, in particular, have quite strong magnetic fields. A reasonable explanation for this is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.

Spiral Galaxies 


A galaxy is an enormous assembly of stars, interstellar gas, and dust. The galaxy in which we live is called the Milky Way; it has over 100 billion stars. Some galaxies are round or elliptical. Others have an irregular shape, but some of the most beautiful galaxies are spiral in nature, such as our own. Spiral galaxies slowly rotate, but the inner regions of the spiral rotate faster than the outer regions. This means that a spiral galaxy is constantly becoming more and more twisted up as the spiral becomes tighter. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy would be wound so tightly that the spiral structure would no longer be recognizable. According to the big-bang scenario, galaxies are supposed to be many billions of years old. Yet we do see spiral galaxies — and lots of them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as the big bang requires. Spiral galaxies are consistent with the biblical age of the universe but are problematic for a belief in billions of years.

Spiral Galaxy




Comets are balls of ice and dirt. Many of them orbit the sun in elliptical paths. They spend most of their time far away from the sun, but occasionally they come very close to it. Every time a comet comes near the sun, some of its icy material is blasted away by the solar radiation. As a result, comets can orbit the sun for only so long (perhaps about 100,000 years at most) before they completely run out of material. Since we still have a lot of comets, this suggests that the solar system is much younger than 100,000 years; this agrees perfectly with the Bible’s history.

Yet, secular astronomers believe the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Since comets can’t last that long, secular astronomers must assume that new comets are created to replace those that are gone. So they’ve invented the idea of an “Oort cloud.” This is supposed to be a vast reservoir of icy masses orbiting far away from the sun. The idea is that occasionally an icy mass falls into the inner solar system to become a “new” comet. It is interesting that there is currently no evidence of an Oort cloud. And there’s no reason to believe in one if we accept the creation account in Genesis. Comets are consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.

Supernatural Creation 


Aside from age, there are other indications that the universe was supernaturally created as the Bible teaches. These evidences show God’s creativity — not a big bang. For example, astronomers have discovered “extrasolar” planets. These are planets that orbit distant stars, not our sun. These planets have not been directly observed. Instead, they have been detected indirectly, usually by the gravitational “tug” they produce on the star they orbit. But the principles being used here are all good “operational science,” the kind of testable, repeatable science that can be done in a laboratory. So we have every reason to believe that these are indeed real planets that God created.

These extrasolar planets are actually a problem for big-bang evolutionary models of solar system formation. Secular astronomers had expected that other solar systems would resemble ours, with small planets forming very closely to their star, and large planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) forming farther away. But many of these extrasolar planets are just the opposite; they are large, Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very closely to their star. This is inconsistent with evolutionary models of solar system formation, but it’s not a problem for biblical creation. God can create many different varieties of solar systems, and apparently He has done just that.



We have seen that when the Bible addresses the topic of astronomy, it is accurate in every aspect. This shouldn’t be surprising, because the Bible, which teaches that the heavens declare the glory and handiwork of God (Psalm 19:1), is the written Word of the Creator. God understands every aspect of the universe He has created, and He never makes mistakes.

In addition, the Word of God provides the correct foundation for understanding the scientific evidence. At the same time, the Bible provides more than just information on the physical universe. It also answers the most profound questions of life. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens when we die? The Word of God even answers the question of why there is death and suffering in the world.1
We can have confidence that what the Bible says about our need for salvation is true, because the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time after time. Showing our children how true science confirms the Bible will help them answer the evolutionary attacks they encounter at schools and in the media.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.



  1. See Back


Here is where even the most ardent students of the Bible are unable to speak with authority beyond repeating the words of God.   This is a place atheism cannot go anyway.    Science tells us that the natural world cannot create itself, so Darwinists cannot even get to the how part because science says they don't get started.   We cannot understand the power of God because God is supernatural and transcends the temporal material existence that contains us and hems us in.   God spoke the worlds into existence.  When we read Genesis we see time and time again "And God said" so we understand that God can create with His Word.   God's Word has guided Christians for many centuries, being the inspiration for great scientists like Newton and great writers like C.S. Lewis and great leaders like Ronald Reagan. 

How is beyond the understanding of man.   God is not material nor natural, he is not imprisoned by time or physical dimensions.   In fact He invented all of these things, powers, we are the created, we cannot hope to wrap our finite minds all the way around the supernatural and superior Creator.  We can only come to trust in Him by faith.    

John 1

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   
 2The same was in the beginning with God.
 3All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.
 4In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
 5And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
 7The same came as a witness to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
 9That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
 10He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
 11He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
 12But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name,
 13who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
 15John bore witness of Him and cried, saying, "This was He of whom I spoke, `He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'"
 16And of His fullness have we all received, and grace for grace.
 17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
 18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
 19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who art thou?"
 20And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
 21And they asked him, "What then? Art thou Elijah?" And he said, "I am not." "Art thou that Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
 22Then said they unto him, "Who art thou, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What sayest thou of thyself?"
 23He said, "I am `the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord,"' as said the prophet Isaiah."
 24And those who were sent were of the Pharisees.
 25And they asked him, and said unto him, "Why dost thou baptize then if thou art not that Christ, nor Elijah, neither that Prophet?"
 26John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there standeth One among you whom ye know not.
 27He it is who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe's strap I am not worthy to unloose."
 28These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
 29The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
 30This is He of whom I said, `After me cometh a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.'
 31And I knew Him not; but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing with water."
 32And John bore record, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and It abode upon Him.
 33And I knew Him not. But He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, `Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the Same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.'
 34And I saw and bore record that this is the Son of God."
 35Again the next day John stood with two of his disciples,
 36and looking upon Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
 37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
 38Then Jesus turned and saw them following, and said unto them, "What seek ye?" They said unto Him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, "Master"), "where dwellest Thou?"
 39He said unto them, "Come and see." They came and saw where He dwelt and stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
 40One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
 41He first found his own brother Simon and said unto him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is, being interpreted, "the Christ").
 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah. Thou shalt be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, "a stone").
 43The day following, Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and found Philip and said unto him, "Follow Me."
 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
 45Philip found Nathanael and said unto him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
 46And Nathanael said unto him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said unto him, "Come and see."
 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"
 48Nathanael said unto Him, "How knowest Thou me?" Jesus answered and said unto him, "Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee."
 49Nathanael answered and said unto Him, "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel."
 50Jesus answered and said unto him, "Because I said unto thee, `I saw thee under the fig tree,' believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these."
 51And He said unto him, "Verily, verily I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."