Search This Blog

Monday, April 01, 2013

The Walking Dead and the Black Box



credit

There is a show on television which has captured the attention of me and my family, The Walking Dead.   It is a show about people who turn into zombies after death and must be killed with a devastating blow to the head so they will die...again.   I will not spoil the series for those who may catch up later.   My wife joined in the fun after my sons and I began watching it and she now is also part of the "turn off the lights and turn up the sound" experience as we DVR the show and then watch it together when schedules allow, fast-forwarding through commercials.   My wife did ask a pretty good question, which was this:  "Why do the zombies need to eat if they are dead and why do they just seem to want to eat living people?"   I replied that it was just a black box.   I don't mean a flight recorder, I mean that it is a very typical plot element found in monster/science fiction movies.   The Time Machine used a time machine that was certainly a black box.   If you love science fiction, you will recognize phasers and light sabers and the famous Star Trek transport beam as being black boxes.  "Beam me up, Scotty" or "Set phasers to stun!" e.g

A black box is a plot device for fiction, although the phrase is used in many disciplines of science, engineering, and etc.  In fiction and sometimes in fact it is just an unknown/unexplained thing with the input and output identified but how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated.  In the case of The Walking Dead, the zombification process and the actions of the zombies are just plot devices that allow the writers to develop the characters.   Who will live, who will die, who will become zombies, who will become heroic, cowardly, be revealed as selfish or selfless, as ruthless or merciful, who will grow strong through conflict and who will be warped or destroyed by it?   The zombies are simply the fulcrum for the story machine.  They are the black box in my opinion, although since they are not a machine or device some would argue for another term.   There are many plot devices/tools of fiction that writers opt to use to move the story along or to resolve it.  The classic ending of War of the Worlds in which the alien invaders die because they had no resistance to earthly bacteria/viruses and simply perished would be a deus ex machina.   I think the zombies are more black box than DEM and also are not MacGuffins.

A MacGuffin is similar.   A MacGuffin is not a plot device, it is a motivating element for the story.  Some might see the zombies as a MacGuffin but I think that since it is an unknown process with known input and output, it is a black box.  The actual statue in The Maltese Falcon was a MacGuffin.  The mind-powered Krell machines that produced the invisible monster in Forbidden Planet was a black box.  The threat of the zombies is sort of a MacGuffin in TWD, but what they are and how they come to be is a black box. 

A deus ex machina is another name for an unexplained plot device and a black box can be one, or part of one.   They are not interchangeable, however, the DEM is pertinent to not only objects but also actions or powers that are conveniently available to save the story, er, day.   It is possible and even likely that a DEM will wind up being employed in the final episode of TWD.   In fact, considering the storyline so far it is hard to imagine how the writers can avoid this method without being very clever.  If they can do it, TWD will become even more of a classic as an artfully done melodrama...if you like that sort of thing, of course.  

 credit

Movies and television use all sorts of such plot devices and MacGuffins.   For instance, virtually every bomb ever discovered in the last few decades has had a red digital readout attached counting down the time until the bomb will explode.   Is it logical that a bomb-maker would add such a thing to a bomb?  No.  But it helps drive a plot.  I recall a truly horrible monster movie, The Deadly Mantis, made in 1957, worthy of Son of Svengoolie or Mystery Science Theater 3000 parodies.   This monster movie is full of dazzling anachronistic film footage splicing and completely wrong place names and so on.  At the end, they literally throw big black boxes of some special gas at the monster mantis and kill it off.   Could a 200-foot long Praying Mantis actually walk around in freezing conditions after being freed from ice?   No.  But then again, lighting bolts and weird equipment would not bring life to Frankenstein's Monster, actual vampires do not exist (I would hope) nor do werewolves or space aliens.   

I would love to write fiction for a living but circumstances make it difficult.   I did work as a journalist and my specialty was writing news features.   I have a way with words, as they say,  but I do need an editor as I do not care for grammatical rules and will misuse the English language with run-on sentences and incorrect use of colons and semi-colons, among other things.  Like many other journalists and ex-journalists, I have short stories and partially-written novels that I have never taken to the logical end of finishing up and "throwing over the transom" to various publishing houses.  Should I ever actually "retire" I would no doubt put working hours into these manuscripts.

Back in the early 70's I wrote most of a novel about a world in which a game was the means by which a character could "move up one level" in a society of humanity that all apparently lived underground and on differing levels equated to social classes.  I "invented" voice-activated and responsive computers that controlled complete living spaces but that is no longer science fiction but is instead becoming fact.   Other aspects of the novel I will not share because I think they may be relatively new ideas.   The Hunger Games would be a crude comparison to my basic plot element but it is not close enough to blow my cover.  

When I got my first computer I began to continue the story in digital form.  I had completed over 200 pages on my first computer when the disk failed, thus teaching me to learn to have a backup of everything the very hard way.   Only a few of those original pages remain kept in a box, but the characters are still alive in my imagination so, given time, I may yet finish it.   Some of us who write keep going back and re-writing chapters and that is something I must cure myself of before I can finish a book.  

My Darwinist commenters would no doubt counsel me to quit writing this blog and spend that time on my novel.  That is logical, but the blog is something I am called to do and while that remains true I will do it!   Christians will understand this, not sure if Darwinists can "grok" the idea?

So I decided to compare Creation and Evolution as if they were novels written and made into movies about a mythical Universe rather than scientific disciplines with metaphysical components.   It became clear to me that, quite ironically, the Darwinists resort to black boxes and deus ex machina continually in order to support their hypothesis, while the Creation story invokes God immediately and without mystery from the beginning and He does not "meddle in the affairs of men" unless He decides that a miracle is what is called for in that place and time.  God is not surprised by anything, as He transcends time and has seen the ending as well as having fashioned the beginning.   God is not a black box, because he is explained logically.   God is not a MacGuffin nor is He a deus ex machina because He is the Deity Himself.   He has not hidden Himself but rather has interacted with mankind from the beginning and has provided us with the Bible, which is His message to mankind.   God does not attempt to hide nor does He attempt to explain how He is able to do what He does because He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and therefore much of what He has done and will do would be beyond our comprehension anyway.

Yet we do see God everywhere we look - design in organisms, fine-tuning in the Universe per physical laws, logical and useful material for mankind to use to build things and accomplish things...all quite in line with the idea of a Logical and Creative Deity.  In fact, reasoning and logic and morality and creativity and comprehension are all clues to lead us to God.   Here is why:

Evolution is all black boxes and deus ex machina.   There is NOTHING that explodes into EVERYTHING with such precision that it creates rather than simply destroys.   As Spock would say, "That is not logical."   A world that randomly pops into existence uncreated should not be anything but random in nature.   We see a logical Universe and we should therefore understand that it was created by a Logical Mind.  Also, we as humans are creative.  Why?  There is not a good Darwinist explanation for being musical, as noise would bring predators to you.   There is no good reason for art because you cannot eat it, nor does the ability to ponder abstract thoughts bring mates to your feet or food to your mouth nor does it protect you from Tigers...or Smilodons...or dinosaurs!   Darwinism appeals to statistically impossible and scientifically incredible miracles as random events with no caustion.  Truly the number of miracles to build a Darwinist Universe exponentially exceeds the miracles listed in the Bible as performed by God.

A great movie, such as The Fugitive, is a well-crafted story with logical events and only a few resorts to unlikely occurrences.   The story is largely that of a murderous act and that of two men, one of whom is determined to be the arm of the law and the other, seeking true justice.   Both men are basically seeking the same thing from differing points of view.   Tommy Lee Jones is Samuel Gerard, a US Marshal assigned to catch and bring back to captivity one Richard Kimble, MD, who was convicted of murdering his wife.  Kimble, played by Harrison Ford, is the innocent man who seeks to evade capture while also attempting to locate the real killer of his beloved wife.   Gerard seeks to enforce the law.  Kimble seeks to uncover the truth.  A great scene includes this classic exchange, as Gerard is poised to capture Kimble in a large stormwater drain system:

Richard Kimble: "I didn't kill my wife!"
Sam Gerard: "I don't care."

credit

Can there be anyone who loves film who has NOT seen this move?    I suppose I should not spoil it.  The recent and phenomenal musical, Les Misérables, is another great movie that does not need to resort to fantastic plot devices to tell the tale.  It is Jean Valjean versus Valvert but it is far more than that, just as Kimble versus Gerard is much more that man versus man.  These are great stories and they are wonderful creations.   

To me, Darwinism comes in at the level of Plan 9 From Outer Space, a movie so awful that it is wonderful to behold for the sheer idiocy and inanity of the plot, acting and scenery and actually EVERYTHING about it is so bad that it is a movie all should see at least once!  The back story about the movie is far better than the movie itself as some remarkable characters come together to unintentionally create perhaps the worst movie of all time.   The drug-addiction of Bela Lugosi and his death three years before the release of the movie, the graveyard scene where the props are so bad you see the ground move and the tombstones wiggle and fall!   The weirdness of Ed Wood, the remarkable Vampira, wooden performances, terribly crafted dialogue, a complete lack of any reasonable MacGuffin and a ludicrous black box are part and parcel to the movie, along with film clips inserted that cannot possibly be taken seriously.   I love the part where the auto that is crashing has a number on it, indicative of some kind of racing accident captured on film, an auto unlike the one supposedly in the storyline. The "goofs" page is far longer than the plot description.  After Bela Lugosi dies early during test footage predating the film, a chiropractor named Tom Mason takes his place but always covers his face with his cape to hide the fact that he is not Lugosi!!!   High School plays would have better quality control than this movie!

 credit

Actually I suppose Lady in the Water is much worse, as we expected M. Night Shyamalan to come up with something better than a ridiculous plot so bad that it needs animated explanations both before and after the actual movie to help the audience comprehend what they were seeing/had seen and seems like a group of actors inventing a plot as they go along.   Shyalaman really needed someone who could tell him, "Uhm, NO!!!"  Those who defend this film claim that M. Night was actually attempting to make a ludicrous comedy out of an Asian legend in the context of a dramatic and supposedly scary film.   More likely is that he was a bit too fixated on Bryce Dallas Howard and was so in love with his own abilities he considered a spontaneous bedtime story he had told his children would make a great movie.  

 credit above



"Shyamalan himself plays an aspiring writer whose teachings, the narf tells him, will one day change the world. By playing this character completely without irony, Shyamalan proves he's either a great actor or a world-class egomaniac."

So, now that I think of it, Darwinism to me is actually closer to Lady in the Water.  pre- and post- movie explanations that are rather senseless and childish equal the premise and the actual evidence of Darwinism.  We are expected to believe that everything came from nothing for no reason, creating a world of logic and wonders and unexplained evil consequences where explosions create and mutations (broken things) improve and develop the primitive into the sophisticated.   Such a premise is bizarre and illogical and yet it is the ruling paradigm of Scientism, helping to dumb-down humanity and hinder actual scientific breakthroughs due to misdirection of time and energy in an attempt to prove the impossible and uncover the nonexistent.   

Yet, just as Lady in the Water has fans who see it as brilliant, some incredibly intelligent people believe in evolution with fervency.  This is a mystery to me from a logical standpoint, but I realize it is because the metaphysical aspect of the so-called science is the sizzle that covers a bad steak.   I know most of the moviegoers we shared the LITW viewing experience with were walking out of the theater grumbling or laughing, if they stayed for the conclusion at all.   We were all shaking our heads at the sheer idiocy of the experience.   Could the maker of The Sixth Sense really be capable of such a disastrous effort?   Well, yes.  Charles Darwin was apparently an interesting companion in his youth and a fine naturalist and gentleman companion for the Captain of the HMS Beagle.   Had he recorded his observations as observations, we would have learned a lot from his writings.   It is when he tried to turn speciation into evolution that he spoiled the plot and ruined the movie.   

Science has not yet recovered from the ghastly wound Darwinism has inflicted upon it.   Perhaps cancer would be cured had all the time and effort put into trying to prop up Darwinism been directed towards medical research?  Would we have already learned to turn trash into energy efficiently had we directed efforts to find space aliens in that direction instead?  Would the horrors that Social Darwinism has unleashed on humanity in the form of holocausts in Germany and Russia and massacres in China and Cambodia and baby-murders in the hundreds of millions around the globe have been averted?  Would not a society founded on Godly morality and law not be better were it still firmly standing on those absolutes rather than sticking one figurative foot out into the air, unsure if there is anything upon which to stand?  Are we not already beginning to fall as we abandon God and Godly behavior?   

Are not those without a relationship with God the real walking dead?

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're not quite right about the definition of the MacGuffin - it is something more specific than how you describe it here.

But more importantly, you describe a black box as "just an unknown/unexplained thing with the input and output identified but how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated".

Could you please explain in what way you think this definition doesn't apply to how creationists use God in trying to explain, say, the origin of the universe or the origin of species etc.?

God is the ultimate black box.

Chuck said...

'God is the ultimate black box'

That's your philosophical bias speaking.

Anonymous said...

"That's your philosophical bias speaking."

And dismissing the statement without any stated reason is your philosophical bias speaking. Well done.

That's why I asked the question:

"Could you please explain in what way you think this definition doesn't apply to how creationists use God in trying to explain, say, the origin of the universe or the origin of species etc.?"

radar said...

I will be satisfied with my quick look at a MacGuffin as I was not applying it to zombies. You may have missed the ironic non-reference to Michael Behe's book = Darwin's Black Box, in which he reveals why Darwinism is incapable of developing irreducibly complex systems. Behe's book was just a start, as we have learned far more about both the cell and DNA and the more we know, the less Darwinism can hang on.

God has made Himself known to us through the Bible. He formed the first man from the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. This is very personal. He came to Earth as a man to be our Salvation as the sacrificial Lamb of God and Messiah. People knew, touched, spoke with, lived and traveled with God in the form of man for years. God is not unknown to those who care to know Him.

Darwinism not only does not have an idea of what is in the Big Bang black box, they also have no input, only output. The output of Big Bang equations does not logically agree with the actual existence we can investigate and it is 96% fudge factors anyway.

God is not a black box at all. He is an unlocked door that you are invited to walk through faith-first. It is all on you to choose to find Him or blind yourself to Him. If you choose to find Him, He will actually find you. I oughta know. I sure didn't become a Christian because I was so good or so smart or so kind. I was aware of my flaws and misdeeds quite well. But God just took me as I was and has been working on spiffing me up ever since.

radar said...

Creationists have been told that God created in the Bible. God gives us an approximate time of creation and an exact length of time to do the creating. He does not reveal how He created a material world and time from scratch. Nor is it likely we could comprehend it if He chose to describe it in detail.

Instead, He made a very logical world of processes that could be understood and used, materials that could to put to good use and gave us a nature, like His, that is creative and both poetic and prosaic. He has made us to be eternal beings in temporal bodies, living now in a four-dimensional world (as we perceive it) but destined to experience the supernatural in either a very positive or negative way.

Again, such knowledge is available to you if you care to know it.

Leticia said...

Okay, I LOVE the Walking Dead!! I got hooked on it last year and I am all caught up. I love Daryl, he's my favorite.

The reason that zombies tend to feast on humans, and this is just my very own hypothesis, is because the brain is what makes us all function, in every aspect, the need to eat, drink, think, move our arms, legs, etc.

So, when a zombie still has its brain intact, it seems the only thing the brain is telling them that they are starving and must feast.

So, once you kill the brain, you kill the zombie.

And all began with a virus that went airborne. So every person is a carrier.

radar said...

Leticia, yeah, I know about the virus but I was not going to give TOO much away so as to entice people to give it a try.

I am also addicted to Castle and Golden Boy and Blue Bloods and a couple of other interesting series on television that I grab with DVR. Otherwise it is sports, science, history and etc. The occasional awesome movie will be playing and I will snag it. But I would choose internet over television if given a choice of one. The internet is like having the world's biggest library, music store, shopping mall and more all at your fingertips.

Now and then I get book fever, go to the real library and check out a few books by authors I really like. But I have technical books to finish first, alas...

Anonymous said...

Radar, your comments don't really address the question. A key part of the definition of a black box is "how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated". Creationists categorically do not investigate HOW God supposedly created the Universe or by what mechanism God created the species.

There are good reasons for this of course. One can't investigate the supernatural, which is why creationism is such a useless dead end in science. There is no need to quibble over this.

However, when science is faced with the questions of, say, why we have different kinds of life on this planet, saying "God did it" immediately becomes a black box: "how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated".

Now, can any of the creationists here please explain in what way you think this definition doesn't apply to how creationists use God in trying to explain, say, the origin of the universe or the origin of species etc.?

radar said...

Okay, Darwinism has NOTHING creating everything and then from explosions and mistakes and accidents the entire Universe and all living things are supposed to have been derived and you think that explains anything?

We have a First Cause, God, and that does not stop science. Science was built on the premise that God created and therefore we can expect to be able to understand how the creation works.

We start from the position of all being designed, assume and expect degradation and devolution has happened and from there we investigate every aspect of the Universe. Being a Creationist does not hinder study of the creation, otherwise Bacon and Kelvin and Maxwell and Copernicus and Pasteur and Von Braun and Newton and other pioneers of science would not have made great discoveries and founded scientific disciplines.

The worldview you begin with, which is that there is no Black Box at all, only an unexplained uncaused explosion. You have no input, no box and your output does not fit in with what we know about matter, energy and organisms.

Creationism has a Black Box and output that does fit the scientific laws. We even have input, actually, in that God's decision to create the Universe was the input. Our output makes sense. Yours doesn't.

A miracle performed by the Deity is far better than *poof* performed by...Casper?

Anonymous said...

Okay, so Radar either didn't understand the question or isn't interested in answering it.

Can any other creationist here please explain in what way you think the definition doesn't apply to how creationists use God in trying to explain, say, the origin of the universe or the origin of species etc.?

radar said...

Alright, now you are being plain stupid! I absolutely gave you an explanation and your question was easy to comprehend. You should be honest and admit that you do not like my answer rather than pretending you were not answered. An ordinary person of average intellect will have no problem at all understanding my reply to you about the black box issue.

Quit being childish and either reply to the argument or admit you cannot refute it.

Anonymous said...

No need to throw a tantrum, Radar.

How do creationists investigate how God created the species? Or the universe, for that matter?

No, your preceding comment didn't answering the question.

First paragraph: an irrelevant dig at "Darwinism". Nothing to do with the question.

Second paragraph: mention of a first cause, but only as a background argument to why creationists think science works. Nothing to do with the question.

Third paragraph: mention of a number of scientists, none of whom had anything to do with an explanation of the variety of species, or the origin of the universe 6,000 years ago. Nothing to do with the question.

Fourth parapgraph: another pointless and unfounded dig at what you imagine the opposing viewpoint to be. Again, nothing to do with the question.

Fifth paragraph: okay, here we have what looks like an admission that God is a black box. Cool. I guess I missed that the first time around. Thank you for agreeing with me! I guess that's settled then.

Sixth paragraph: yet another pointless, childish dig, and nothing to do with the question.

Chuck said...

"No need to throw a tantrum, Radar."

LOL! Another attempt to put in loaded words and provoke emotions. Radar's direct answer made sense. It's easy to see that YOU are the one having the tantrum, especially with the manipulation of words, sneaky boy.

Anonymous said...

"LOL! Another attempt to put in loaded words and provoke emotions."

If you want to highlight "loaded words" and attempts to "provoke emotions", what do you make of Radar's comment above mine? All fine by you, is it?

"Radar's direct answer made sense."

And yet Radar didn't answer the question. Evasions can make sense, but that doesn't mean they're not evasions.

"It's easy to see that YOU are the one having the tantrum, especially with the manipulation of words, sneaky boy."

You do know what tantrum means, don't you Chuck?

By the way, you can't answer the question either, can you? Just making sure.

radar said...

I answered the question. It takes either an illogical or very brainwashed individual to fail to acknowledge my argument and try to refute it.

Instead, you resort to a pretense and thereby try to avoid facing the question.

God is described by the Bible and He is the witness to His output = the Universe and all within it. In fact His description of creation and His assertion that He both stretched and is stretching the Universe explains red shifts and even possibly accelerating stars while background radiation is normalized throughout the Universe.

A Big Bang is just magic and myth. You have no cause nor causation agent nor explanation for a "singularity" to begin things. Nor does explosions and mistakes explain an exquisitely designed Universe in which logical laws are comprehended and life is able to survive on Earth. We see devolution, not evolution and this is also explained in the Bible.

You got nothing, champ! Plan 10 from Charlie Darwin. Har.

Anonymous said...

"I answered the question."

Yes, you agreed that God was a black box in Creationism when it comes to the origin of the universe and the origin of species. Thank you for your candid answer.

My question was addressed to people who DIDN'T think that the definition of a black box applied to God in these matters.

radar said...

Lying will not help your cause. I explained why God is NOT actually a black box because He does tell us about His nature and intentions. We know God's nature, His reason for beginning the Universe and mankind and His plans for the future.

Are you being deliberately deceptive or are you simply used to twisted and warped reasoning?

The Big Bang and Darwinism are black boxes. They cannot be explained and they in fact may not even BE black boxes, as a true black box has an output and the only output I see from Darwinism and the Big Bang is deceptive fairy tales instead of evidence.

Anonymous said...

"Lying will not help your cause. I explained why God is NOT actually a black box because He does tell us about His nature and intentions. We know God's nature, His reason for beginning the Universe and mankind and His plans for the future."

Who's being deceptive here?

First, you did not explain that you think God is not a black box because you claim he tells us about his nature and intentions.

Second, you evaded this key point:

"Radar, your comments don't really address the question. A key part of the definition of a black box is "how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated". Creationists categorically do not investigate HOW God supposedly created the Universe or by what mechanism God created the species."

Which happens to be true. Pretending that a bible verse attributed to the black box itself explains it is not really the same as investigating how and why it works. Actually, it lines up perfectly with the statement "how and why it works is a mystery", which is why using God as an explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of species is just that, a black box.

You can deceive and try to change the subject all you want, but there it is.

radar said...

"Lying will not help your cause. I explained why God is NOT actually a black box because He does tell us about His nature and intentions. We know God's nature, His reason for beginning the Universe and mankind and His plans for the future."

Who's being deceptive here?

Not me. I explained that God has made Himself known purposefully via the Bible and therefore is not a true Black Box.

First, you did not explain that you think God is not a black box because you claim he tells us about his nature and intentions.

Actually I did exactly that!

Second, you evaded this key point:

"Radar, your comments don't really address the question. A key part of the definition of a black box is "how and why it works is a mystery or is not investigated". Creationists categorically do not investigate HOW God supposedly created the Universe or by what mechanism God created the species."


You are not very well informed here. Creationists do indeed investigate how God created the Universe in terms of what happened at the time of Creation. Cosmologists such as Hugh Ross, Moshe Carmeli, John Hartnett, Russell Humphreys and others have been investigating both the creation event and how God could have created in six days and produced a Universe with the appearance of billions of years old.

Which happens to be true. Pretending that a bible verse attributed to the black box itself explains it is not really the same as investigating how and why it works. Actually, it lines up perfectly with the statement "how and why it works is a mystery", which is why using God as an explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of species is just that, a black box.

Let's be perfectly clear. God tells us Who He is, and gave us the what, why, when and where account of the creation of the Universe and everything in it, including all living organisms.

The input would be God's desire to create this world and the world itself is the output and God is the One doing it all.

You can deceive and try to change the subject all you want, but there it is.

There is no deception here. God made the Universe, told us why He did it and has also made many statements about what would happen in the future through the writers He inspired. Every prophecy in the Bible has either been fulfilled or apply to the end of the temporal world, making them future proclamations.

Your problem is that you want someone to allow you, a created temporal being, to look over the Eternal Transcendent Being and comprehend Him fully. God is greater than man and therefore there is no way we can understand HOW God's power works. Can your dog comprehend what you do for a living and take your place if you go on vacation? Can your tropical fish look over your algebra homework and check it for errors?

If you expect me or anyone else to be greater than God so that we can teach you about His powers, you will be waiting a long time. I can tell you what He has done and why and when and where.

On the other hand, you have no first cause for a Big Bang, you have no explanation for the nature or composition of the fabled "singularity" and you not only bring in a fudge factor (Planck Time)to attempt to give people a reason to believe that "nothing exploded and became everything" but also you have Big Bang equations that are 96% unobserved matter and energy...and you call THAT science?

Our space missions have shown cosmology that the planets are young, whether they care to admit it or not. Study of stars show us that they can only form from the remains of dead stars. Study of space dust proves it cannot clump together and form planets or stars. So the Nebular Hypothesis is unworkable.

radar said...

Study of organisms shows us that they are designed with intricate systems and sophisticated coding systems that we do not yet fully comprehend. Study of life shows us that it cannot form from non-life. Darwinists hide behind "argument from incredulity" because their arguments are not credible.

Secular science is not going to be able to define "life" any better than they can define "gravity" because they can see it work and even make predictions about it but can they put a gram of "life" in petri dish? Nope. Can they come up with a way that life came from non-life? Nope. Because the Law of Biogenesis tells us it cannot happen. Myriad experiences tell us it cannot happen. Why do they persist in asserting that impossible things are fact and deny ultimate Truth and Meaning? Not because of evidence. In spite of evidence. It is all about clinging to Atheism.

Atheism is a belief system like Theism. It has more than one form. So does Theism. I am a Christian. Most Creation Scientists are Christians but not all. Many Intelligent Design scientists are Christians but it may be that fewer than half are believers. I know for a fact that many of them are not Christians but they see the evidence and they do admit and assert that the Universe and all in it was designed.

While I disagree with some of what Bill Dembski says, his views on the nature of organisms and the math that proves Darwinism is impossible statistically is irrefutable. Brilliant men like Stephen C. Meyer and David Berlinski can skirt philosophical/metaphysical assumptions entirely and prove that the Universe and organisms are designed. Why are their arguments ignored, shunned, censored and attacked so vehemently by Darwinists? They have the qualifications and make the coherent arguments that qualify them as great scientists. Yet Darwinists work to keep them out of the discussion.

If science was boxing, then Darwinism is crying "no mas" before Creationism can get in the ring and they have ID disqualified by crooked judges. Darwinism cannot stand on evidence.