Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Question Evolution? Question Everything! Or would you be willing to die for the sake of Darwin?

If someone broke into my house with a gun and told me to recant my Christianity or die, I would be shot dead before I abandoned my faith.  Would you be willing to die for the sake of Darwin?

Are you a Low Information Person?  Do you just take in whatever "everyone" says is true and thoughtlessly run with it, or do you consider and ponder ideas before you accept them?  Have you taken the time to formulate your worldview thoughtfully or have you simply started with what they taught you in school without doubt or perusal and merrily rolled along thoughtlessly through? Are you busy sending text messages, posting things on Facebook, putting in your time at work and then coming home and kicking back and turning on your entertainment of choice?

Charles Darwin was not motivated by a desire to increase the knowledge of mankind, he was no scientist, he was a high priest of atheistic naturalism!  In fact, when a guy like Bill Nye pretends that evolution is "science" and creationism is "religion" he is lying through his teeth.  Does he know it or is he brainwashed?   Al Mohler did a great piece on the worldview clash of Bill Nye and Ken Ham.  You see, the Darwinist must depend upon his philosophy/religion to prop up his so-called "science."

A blogger-columnist named Steve Deace had some questions and comments for all who watched the debate or might plan on watching it online later:

     “The highly-anticipated showdown between evolutionist Bill Nye ‘the science guy’ and creationist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis is now over. It remains to be seen in the days and weeks ahead if it changed any hearts and minds.  After watching the debate I still have a series of unanswered questions for Nye I’d love to get his answers to:
    
   “1. You admitted during the debate you don’t know where human consciousness and intelligence comes from, yet several times you also urged the audience to maintain your viewpoint’s current status quo dominance of the culture for the good of society. 
 
But if you don’t know where the consciousness and intelligence comes from that guides human affairs in the first place, how do you know that what you’re advocating for is what’s best for society? How do you know whether or not the source of your belief system is a benevolent or malevolent force? Not to mention if we don’t know where intelligence comes from, how do we even know we know what benevolent and malevolent means? If what you believe has led to some good in human society, how do you know that believing the God of the Bible is the source of consciousness and intelligence wouldn’t make for an even better society? 
 
If you don’t know where consciousness or intelligence comes from, when do you know you’re right and when do you know you’re wrong? Furthermore, how do you know whether or not everything you believe is really a lie? Perhaps we don’t even exist, and you’re unconscious now like in the Matrix, and what you think is reality is not? 
 
Finally, why isn’t someone such as yourself, who claims to be so willing to pursue truth at all costs, at least a little concerned that he’s not even sure what the starting point for his entire belief system is? If you’re not sure how you started, how do you know you’re headed in the right direction? Do you really expect us to believe a brilliant man such as yourself really has no thoughts at all on where human intelligence and consciousness comes from? Surely you’ve thought about it beyond ‘I don’t know,’ and we’d love to know what you think.

     “2) You admitted it was ‘a great mystery’ what started the ‘big bang,’ which you believe is the origin of human life and the universe. 
 
If that’s what you really believe is the origin of all existence, then shouldn’t the primary investment of our scientific inquiry be devoted to solving that mystery? In fact, how can we truly judge the efficacy of scientific inquiry based on that assumption if we don’t have the answer to that question? 
 
For example, if I don’t understand why an airplane was made to fly and whether or not the engineer that made it intended it to do so, I might just settle for driving the airplane down the street on asphalt since it has an engine and tires. The airplane is capable of doing so, and I wouldn’t know any better. However, if I know why the airplane happened to exist then I know it can do so much more than that, and the airplane can now realize its full potential.
 
How would I know what the airplane is ultimately for if I don’t know why it was made? I wouldn’t look silly driving an airplane down the street like any other vehicle unless we all knew it was meant to take to the air. But to know that requires me to know why it was designed that way and for what purpose. 
 
You spent a good deal of time telling us what it is you didn’t like about Ham’s answers to those questions, but what are yours? You want us to assume your views and conclusions are what’s best for human progress, yet you won’t tell us what you think the purpose of human existence is in the first place? How do we know what’s best if we don’t know why we exist? 
 
How do we know we’re progressing if we don’t know where we’re from? Suppose I looked on a map for the destination I wanted to go, but had no starting point. How would I know how to get to my destination? How would I know I’m making progress in the right direction?

     “3) Several times you referred to yourself as ‘reasonable.’ 
 
Does that mean to imply those that disagree with you are ‘unreasonable.’ If so, that is very judgmental of you. Where do you get off imposing your definition of ‘unreasonable’ upon the rest of us? Come to think of it, since you don’t know where human intelligence and consciousness comes from, I’m not even sure if I’m to be insulted or complimented by being called ‘unreasonable.’ 
 
Where does your definition of ‘reasonable’ come from in the first place? If that definition is not fixed, then how do you know you’re always the reasonable one? Couldn’t the definition of ‘reasonable’ change? I assume you’ve changed your mind on a few things over the years, so how do you know if you were “unreasonable” then or “reasonable” now? Are only people that agree with you “reasonable?” That sounds like the sort of statement a bigot might make. 
 
Many of your scientific forefathers like Copernicus, Newton, and Kepler were Christians who were inspired by the Bible. Would you consider them to be “unreasonable?” Was Newton being “unreasonable” when he studied the Bible and ‘reasonable’ when he discovered the laws of physics? 
 
You were concerned about Ham insulting billions of non-Christians by taking the Bible literally, but why aren’t you concerned about insulting the billions of Christians that do as well? What’s so ‘reasonable’ about that? “

     ”4. You repeatedly referred to “Ham’s beliefs” and “Ham’s interpretations” throughout the debate. 
 
Is Ham the only person in the world that believes this way? Does that mean you believe everyone that agrees with Ham is essentially a lemming incapable of thinking for themselves? How do we know that what you were asserting weren’t simply “Nye’s beliefs” and “Nye’s interpretations?” Only 15% of Americans believe as you do, that human life and the origin of the universe happened strictly through natural occurrences. If you’re concerned about Ham offending billions of non-Christians, why aren’t you similarly concerned about offending the other 85% of your own countrymen?

     “5. Several times you admitted in the debate ‘I’m not a theologian.’ If that’s the case, why did you spend so much critiquing the Bible and the conclusions Ham draws from it? If you’re not a theologian, then how do you know your critiques had merit? If you’re not a theologian, how do you even know what you’re critiquing? 
 
Suppose someone admitted ‘I’m not an astrophysicist’ but then went on to criticize a very important research paper on the subject of astrophysics. Would you expect the leading scientific journals of the day to publish their critique as credible despite the fact they admitted up front they have no idea what they’re talking about?

     “6. In your heart of hearts, Bill, are you really willing to bet your eternal soul on your belief system? Are you really willing to stake what happens to you and your loved ones after you die on ‘I don’t know’ and ‘that’s a great mystery?’ Are you confident enough in your ‘I don’t knows’ to wager your forever on them? Are you sure Jesus Christ isn’t alive? Did all of those men and women that voluntarily went to their deaths without a fight in order to testify to the truth of Christ’s resurrection really die for nothing? If he’s not, then how come we changed all of human existence, including how we even tell time, based on acknowledging that he is? 
 
If you died today, are you 100% certain you have the right answers, and are you willing to face any consequences for the wrong ones? Because in the end, my friend, that’s really what we’re talking about here, isn’t it?”


I have news for you!  They've lied to you and the worldview that the Naturalistic Materialists have presented as scientific fact is actually an unproven hypothesis that does not stand up to scrutiny.  Did you know that Darwinism aka Naturalistic Materialistic Evolution has no factual support?  Did you realize that it is all based on supposition rather than evidence?   To borrow from myself:


"Saturday, December 31, 2011

       



Logical Arguments for the Existence of God - Basics of Philosophy
"You see, science is supposed to be based on discovery. Discovery comes from questioning. Right now the scientific community has turned from scientists to musk oxen, joined together surrounding their pet hypothesis of naturalistic materialism and their horns are all turned directly at those who question. In other words, so-called scientists of the ruling paradigm have abandoned the first precept of science, which is to QUESTION what is not proven and only accept what is absolutely certain." - Radar



credit - Darwinists, like Musk Oxen, must protect their weak hypothesis from investigation

You cannot separate science and philosophy.  You cannot separate worldview from your thought life.  You begin with presuppositions when you view the world and think about it.   The wise man does not simply view the world and consider what he should both think and do, he also reviews his worldview to be sure it makes the most sense.  Before you begin a trip you do need to have both a destination and the route that will take you there.  But anyone with any common sense makes sure that the vehicle is ready for the trip..."



Here is the problem...a worldview is the set of assumptions you use to guide you through life.  Just as life is a journey through time for all of us during our life on Earth, your worldview is the starting point for that journey and it is the first premise by which you consider new ideas.   If you have not audited your own worldview you are much like a man beginning a trip without a map in hopes of reaching a destination.  I promise you that the directions to get you from the Pearl Harbor Memorial in Honolulu to the parking lot at the base of Diamondhead would not suffice to get you from the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC to Disneyland in Orlando, Florida.  If you go to the end of my street, take a left and go about three miles you will get to an intersection from which you can go towards Chicago by taking a left at the traffic light.  If you turned right and tried to go three miles then you and your car would be underwater because you would have driven into a large lake.  
 
Destinations require starting points and directions.  Worldviews need the same.   
 
Evolutionists assert all sorts of things about organisms and the sedimentary rock layers and yet when you look behind the curtain of their assertions you find nothing but hypotheses rather than anything concrete.  They ignore every bit of evidence for a God-created Universe and a short time frame for the existence of the Universe, the Solar System, the Earth and organisms.   They deny the evidence for the Noahic Flood and the Table of Nations.

Today is Darwin's birthday.  Those who promote Darwinism for religious purposes claim that his writings and hypotheses were great achievements that changed the scientific world for the better.  Yet nothing could be further from the truth!  Charles Darwin plagiarized or borrowed much of his material from men like James Hutton and Alfred Wallace and Edward Blyth.  Blyth, a Creationist, was the man who came up with the idea of natural selection, but he did while proposing the process as part of the conservation and preservation of kinds of organisms (baramin) designed by God as part of the redundancies and contingencies design features of organisms.  Hutton and Wallace had also formulated ideas that Darwin took and inserted in his first book.  Darwin was also impressed with the assertions of Charles Lyell, whose concept of Uniformitarianism was based in part on his own deliberate lies.  Darwin also drew from the writings of Thomas Malthus, who predicted that the population of man would outstrip the resources of the Earth and therefore needed to be controlled. 

At about the same time Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" there was a finding by scientists that there was a Law of Biogenesis, a law that Louis Pasteur's experiments had conclusively proven to the scientific world that life does not arise from non-life.  Real science will investigate an unproven hypothesis and by observation and experiments will then classify it as a theory while seeking to either disprove or prove it.  Should it be upheld by experimentation by scientists over and over again, then it is called a law.  The Law of Biogenesis was never disputed by any experimental results ever since, yet the scientific community of today calls it a "theory" now because they realize that, if Biogenesis is true then Naturalistic Evolution cannot be true. 

Evolution must get rid of God because a Creator God not only kills off evolution and all pagan Naturalist philosophies, God also gives us answers concerning why we are here and where we are supposed to be going and what we should be doing along the way. 

So the High Priests of Darwinism have arbitrarily downgraded Biogenesis to a theory, ignored the Laws of Thermodynamics and have consistently ignored all the new evidence uncovered in the last one hundred years that rip the foundations of Evolution to shreds.  The Earth is not the center of the Solar System but it may well be in the center of the Universe.  All organisms are written with the same code (DNA) and powered by the same mechanisms and have all the hallmarks of being designed.  A cell cannot exist without DNA and DNA cannot do anything without the power of the ATP Synthase system and the ATP system requires a cell in order to operate.  As the cell is examined more closely, we see that systems and mechanisms and various relationships that are irreducibly complex and vital to the existence of life are myriad but we see nothing that indicates an accidental unplanned process has built it.  We see that all sorts of genetic material is available to organisms to allow them to vary in response to changing ecosystems but this process is not random.  We see that the mother lays the framework for the child, thus forcing organisms to remain the same kind of organisms as their predecessors.

Organisms become extinct and organisms can vary in an orderly and understood manner.  We can  thank Mendel for identifying some of the processes involved in the passing on of genetic materials and we can thank Linnaeus for his attempt to classify organisms into kinds and the groups that are speciated from the main kind.  Both of these men believed God created organisms and were, like Newton and Bacon and Lord Kelvin and Maxwell and Kepler and the vast majority of the founding fathers of science, sure that investigating the world was worth doing because it was created by a Logical Mind.  That premise led such men to devote their lives to finding out what made things work and how those systems and processes and forces could be understood.

How is it that you blindly accept that the Universe and all the stars and planets and organisms, all the forces and laws and the atoms and subatomic particles all just somehow "poofed" into existence?  Would a random explosion of nothing create everything in such an orderly fashion?  Every time you drop a rock it falls to the ground.  Every time you take in a breath in you will find you need to expel that breath and take another.  Husbands, every time your wife gets pregnant there will be a human baby growing inside of her.  When dogs mate they have puppies, not something partway between a dog and a horse.  Bacteria produce more bacteria. 

Are there mutations?  Yes, and that is a problem not an answer!  The human genome is piling up mutations that keep foisting new allergies and syndromes and diseases upon us.  Mutations are planned for within our DNA and did you know that DNA has a mechanism to locate and fix errors in duplication?  However, mutations manage to pass on despite the system in place to defeat them and they build up and eventually they will kill off mankind. 

I have posted on Facilitated Variation and Genetic Redundancy and Irreducible Complexity on this blog as well as many other scientific discoveries that actually support the idea that God created organisms and the Solar System and the Universe.  Most scientists before Darwin believed that God created and it took a lot of snake oil salesmen like Francis Galton and Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel to help brainwash people into believing that the Universe created itself, organisms just kind of made themselves and all the forces and systems and laws that work within or govern the Universe are the result of random purposeless chance.  I hope and pray that you are not so foolish as to believe such tripe!

Please do yourself a favor.  Question evolution and not just evolution.  Question every portion of your worldview!  Why do you believe what you believe?  Have you investigated competing philosophies of man?  Have you read great works of social relevance that cause you to think about the purpose of your life and the reason you vote as you do, the reason you live as you do, the morality by which you govern your life?

As a father, I directed my kids to understand the Bible and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior because I was a responsible father.  I urged my children to think about their faith and to go ahead and question that faith and consider other beliefs.  I had books like 1984 and Animal Farm and Brave New World and Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Flies available to them.  My kids read Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but I also encouraged them to investigate Socialism and Communism and Atheism.  I taught them what Darwinists believe and urged them to learn all that school taught them but at the same time to use their minds to investigate those teachings and hold fast to what they believed to be true.  My kids could get an "A" in the sciences and repeat back the nonsense about evolution back to the teachers on tests but they could also explain to you why they did not believe it. 

I raised free thinkers who were equipped to go forth into the world and hold on to what made sense and throw away ideas that were not sensible.  They could and did discuss what they believed with their teachers when asked and I am thankful we had a public school system at that time with Christians as Superintendent and Principals, a system where kids were taught to do public service as part of their education and where questioning minds were encouraged rather than shunned.  I had a daughter who was in National Honor Society beginning in junior high school every year eligible (freshmen were not allowed at that time), I had another daughter who got a full scholarship to art college, and in fact all but one of my children were offered full scholarships to colleges but one and that daughter was born with conditions that were supposed to kill her.  She didn't go to college but she has made it despite her physical challenges to be a responsible mother and person. 

One son led the school academic teams downstate to gold and silver medals his last two years of high school.  Every graduation I would see my kids walking up to receive multiple awards.  Some of them sang, some of them were thespians, some of them artists and one was a school journalist and photographer. One was an all-state singer and another won awards for his senior yearbook efforts.  One is a law clerk, one served five years in the Army with honors and I trust them completely.   My kids are succeeding at life.  They are raising their kids to do the same.  I didn't raise them to seek fame or fortune so much as to seek to be good Christians and good citizens with good sense and a heart for others.

Why brag on my kids?  I am a father and a grandfather now and my grandkids are all believers and doing great!  Of course a father who is proud of his offspring wants to brag on them!

I raised good citizens and those who have married are married to Christians who are also good citizens.  My worldview produced a family of people who work hard and succeed and you would be happy if any of them lived next door.  My worldview produced great Americans and neighbors and friends who care for other people and are productive members of society. 

People who do not believe in the Creator God are busy tearing down our society and the USA is in grave danger because of all the Low Information People who have been Low Information Voters and not understood that a society that takes from the productive to give to the unproductive will fail or fall into the hands of tyrants who will turn us all into serfs under the iron hand of a dictator.  Why do people allow the Hitlers and Stalins and Castros take power over them?  Because they believed lies and acted upon them.  Why do we still have no cures for cancer and ALS and so many other diseases?  Could it be that so many scientists are trying to find proof for evolution and ways to support that religion rather than working to help others? 

Do you believe ancient aliens came to Earth and built stone monuments?  Do you believe that a Big Bang created the Universe (nothing making everything)?  Are you more likely to think that people will learn to harness their minds to levitate mountains or that Jesus was able to walk on water?  Which of those two concepts have any historical support? 

There is a Bible that asserts that God created all things and made a way to create a relationship between Him and you, a relationship that will continue beyond the end of time.  There is a book written by Charles Darwin that asserts that organisms basically created themselves.  Jesus Christ said that He is the Door to eternal life.  Stephen Hawking declares that when you take your last breath you come to an end.  Millions of Christians have been willing to publish their faith even in the face of certain death at the hands of unbelievers.  Thousands of so-called scientists will tell you that Christianity is nonsense.  But how many of them would die rather than abandon their Atheist faith?

So again I ask, would you die for the sake of Darwin?  I tell you that you will die because of him if you keep believing in evolution and denying the Creator God.  Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life."   You are an eternal person living in a temporal world.  Look into yourself and ask yourself if you are willing to go into death sure that death ends YOU?   A Just God demands that you take responsibility for your life.  Jesus Christ has taken your judgment upon Himself but you have to decide to accept His work on your behalf or to take your chances without Him.  That is what believing in Darwinism means in the end.  

1 comment:

Piltdown Superman said...

Radar is rockin' on this one! A very strong work, and I was glad to share it at The Question Evolution Project.