Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Darwinian Miracles?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. Genesis 1:1-9

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 1:24-27

Do you believe in miracles?

This is the question that everyone must inevitably answer … sooner or later. The verses quoted above are miracles. There is no other way to explain them. One cannot deny these truths and call themselves a Christian. Jesus birth, death, and resurrection were miracles. Do you believe Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, and created the water He walked upon? Did Jesus mere presence calm the storm? There are valid reasons why these truths should not be taught in public school science classes. They are miracles. They are Truth, but miraculous spiritual Truth … to believe in them requires a belief in Jesus Christ, the God of all creation.

God spoke creation into existence.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Here is the answer: God! ……… He is omnipresent.
God created the chicken.

In the beginning God was there. GOD is where all of these questions end.

If scientists find evidence that confirms these miracles, what should science do with this evidence? Should it be considered, or automatically disregarded as contrary to naturalistic evolution, the belief that atheistic scientists have chosen to adopt as their philosophy or religion.

It has been concluded by scientists that there are only two explanations for the fact that life exists: creation or evolution. They have rejected creation as a miraculous fantasy of the spiritually deluded, and scientifically ignorant. Therefore; evolution must be true by default, they conclude.
There is no other option. But there is a dilemma that comes with this false logic. It has also been concluded by scientists that for Darwinian evolution to be true, it would require a far bigger miracle than creation. And if Darwinian evolution is in fact scientifically un-provable, and mathematically impossible; therefore to believe in evolution is in reality, a form of religion which means to teach evolution should be banned from our public schools.

The truth is that life is a miracle, you can believe one way or the other … but both beliefs are miraculous and therefore each belief is religious and philosophical. This is what I will demonstrate here today.

Now it is clear that the religion of Christianity teaches that in order to be a follower of Christ, we must accept these miracles.
But why do I contend that if true, evolution would be an even bigger miracle that Creation? Because without God, untold trillions of miraculous accidents needed to happen over an endless period of time.

I contend evolution leads to total chaos. Read this: "Here is a mathematical equation for how this all began: If 0=+1+(-1)then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal-sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of those globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."1

These questions are complex beyond our imagination but I will attempt to simplify to avoid scientific boredom. In his article, “The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools” David Rodabaugh PH.D and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri shows that given the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so small as to constitute a scientific impossibility” --- the chance that it could have happened “anywhere in the universe … is less than 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros after it. This figure is terminal to evolution.2 According to the French expert on probability, Emil Borel, who explains the “single law of chance” as follows: (1 chance in 10 with 50 zeros) this is the point beyond which things never occur.3 To better understand the size of 10 with 50 zeros; keep in mind that one trillion equals 10 with twelve zeros. A chance of 1 in 10 with 50 zeros is an unimaginable number equal to one chance in 100 trillion, trillion, trillion … trillion. Now try to even comprehend 1 in 10 with 2,999,942 zeros. Remember we are only trying to consider the amount of time evolutionists claim is necessary for the miracle of evolution to have occurred in one simple mutation. This number is beyond impossible from both a mathematical and scientific analysis. This equation does not consider the probability of the actual miracles beyond a simple mutation.
Evolutionary science is clearly beyond bazaar.

If this is true, why do scientists ignore these facts and promote evolution as fact?

I will refer to Dr. George Wald the esteemed evolutionist and Nobel Prize winning Zoologist to answer this question. “The reasonable view was to believe in Spontaneous Generation (SG); the only other alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in Spontaneous Generation as a philosophical necessity … Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the Spontaneous Generation hypothesis, are yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, and are as a result left with nothing.” Dr. Wald goes on to conclude that the SG of a living organism was impossible, "but even so, I choose to believe that SG occurred because after all, here we are.”4 Spontaneous Generation (SG) defined: abiogenesis: hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. Evolutionists say time plus chance resulted in life. Time has become a deity of sorts. Time is the miracle in Dr. Wald’s naturalistic evolutionary belief system, but unfortunately time cannot turn an apple into a helicopter, or a frog into a prince. On the other hand, with God, the Creator, all things are possible.

It takes faith beyond imagination to believe in Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, as well. Dr. George Bahnsen further explains evolution's dilemma: “Evolution is not a testable scientific hypothesis at all, but rather a philosophical paradigm preferred by some men to discredit the Biblical doctrine of creation.”5

Evolution is philosophically comfortable for the world of naturalistic materialists who are for the most part confessing atheists. The idea of creation by God or any other intelligent designer of any kind is totally unacceptable to them in any form, regardless of evidence. Creating one’s own ethical and spiritual values is far more appealing to atheists and naturalists.

Evolutionist Michael Ruse adds: “I must point out that orthodox scientists loathe scientific creationism and do all in their power to oppose it”6 Please note his use of the word "orthodox." I don't think I have seen or heard "orthodox" used beyond describing very religious Jews. Does this imply that we are referring to scientists who approach their naturalistic beliefs with a deeply religious fervor?

Evolutionist Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History asked his audience one simple but key question which made clear his doubts about much of what has been thought to be secure knowledge about the process of evolution as follows: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing … that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time but eventually one person said, “I do know one thing---it ought not to be taught in high school.”7

And here is another of my favorites: Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich and former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists writes “we have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy.
It’s about time we cry: “The Emperor has no clothes.”8

What about all of the evidence for evolution? One of the supposed greatest discoveries supporting the idea that life could evolve from non-life in the past century was a simple experiment performed by Dr. Stanley Miller. The scientist placed methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a glass container with boiling water. Then he zapped it with a spark-discharge device to stimulate the lightning that would strike the early earth’s atmosphere (supposedly containing these elements). In a few days, amino acids were formed, the building blocks of proteins, part of the basic stuff of life. Supposedly, these lightning-induced compounds would subsequently evolve upward in the primitive oceans. The reaction to this experiment was worldwide. The scientific world quickly grasped this materialistic straw in order to avoid any theistic considerations. World renowned Astronomer Carl Sagan and author of the famous book Cosmos and the TV series as well called Dr. Millers experiment “the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely be abundant in the cosmos”9 Chemist William Day described it as “An experiment that broke the logjam” to show that the first step in the origin of life was not a chance event, but one that had been inevitable.”10

"Dr. Miller's experiment was refuted by Creationist Chemist Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, who has three Doctorates. Dr. Wilder-Smith explained; “that the original Miller experiment that is so often stated as evidence that life could arise spontaneously does no such thing. He further explains that Miller did not take into account the fact the supposed proof amino acids would actually be broken down by the excess water in the ocean, and therefore that the ocean is the least likely place that life could originate. Further, he explains the fact that the preferences of scientists in general for the philosophy of naturalism or materialism is the real reason abiogenesis is accepted … not scientific data.”

"Dr. Wilder-Smith then proceeds to explain Chirality. A scientific reality that would effectively deliver these supposed miracle amino acids: DOA! And rendering the false premise of abiogenesis and evolution that was generally taken for granted by science; hopelessly invalid. This conclusion is categorical and absolute, and cannot be changed by special conditions. Unfortunately science books continue to promote this false teaching as if it provides the last link in the chain of evidence for "chance biogenesis." To claim that Miller has provided the first step for spontaneous biogenesis involves a willful misleading of the uninformed general public in the interests of biased materialistic philosophy."11

Like I have said previously, I have a thousand of these quotes and could go on and on … so why do so many esteemed and prominent scientists hold to what they know to be false science? A key tactic is to promote the deception that all credible science is in agreement on evolution. That is clearly a deliberate lie. It has simply become their philosophy and/or religion. It is the basis or core of their belief system. They have accepted naturalistic evolution by faith.

The point is that the existence of mankind---or of living things generally isn’t just one miracle, it is a succession of endless miracles. Every combination of factors to produce the simplest mechanism for evolution to occur would require countless more miracles. To teach otherwise is false science. This premise of Darwinian evolution is nothing more that naturalistic materialism presented as science in a way devised to rebuke the Creator of all things.

The false religion of evolution should not be taught in public schools. It is leading the world away from the Creator of all things.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

God bless you my friends, Bob
Copyright: Robert West 2011

Highly recommended: Primary Reference: Darwin's Leap Of Faith, John Ankerberg and John Weldon
1. Isaac Asimov "What is Beyond the Universe?" Science digest, April 1971 p.69 in Heeren, show me God p.118
2. David J. Rodabaugh, "The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools" Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1975 p.14
3. James Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? Zondervan 1973 p.260
4. R. Clyde McCone, Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution," in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, march 1973, p.208
5. Greg Bahnsen in The Challenge of Design p.87
6. Karl Popper, Unended Quests: An Intellectual Autobiography p 168-169
7. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial InterVarsity, 1991 p.10
8. Hsu, reply Geology, Vol 14, pp.532-34 (1986) in Bird Vol. 2, p.516
9. Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74
10.William L. Bradley/Charles Thaxton, "Information and the Origin of Life" in Moreland Creation hypothesis pp. 173-74
11.Ankerberg/Weldon, Darwin's Leap of Faith pg. 171-74

1 comment:

  1. As always I come away from your blog enlightened in Gods word.