GOD and Science:
DARWIN on TRIAL – Blinded by SCIENTISM
HOW exactly did we get here?
We are told and taught that Darwinian “evolution” EXPLAINS our human origins. “Natural selection” or “survival of the fittest” explains as “scientific fact” how we humans got here, taken for granted as “truth” as sure as the “earth is round” (spherical”). To question evolutionary orthodoxy is tantamount to believing “the earth is flat”.
What exactly does biological “evolution” EXPLAIN and how TRULY “SCIENTIFIC” is it?
Debate and controversy has ensued since the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1859. But today, do we really KNOW HOW we got here? Or is Darwinian evolution a modern form of MYTHOLOGY, pseudo-scientific, philosophical “FUNDAMENTALISM” HIDING and MASKING the FACT we STILL lack an adequate explanation based on EMPIRICAL SCIENCE for our existence, that human origins are STILL an UNSOLVED MYSTERY?
Is the “EVOLUTION” OR “CREATION” debate really a BATTLE between COMPETING “FUNDAMENTALISMS” uncritically accepted as BLIND FAITH??
Is “Darwinism” BAD SCIENCE, and “Creationism” BAD RELIGION? (non-Biblical)
Is Darwinism a GREAT THEORY that is NOT supported by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE? [OBSERVATION], a deceptive form of PSEUDO-SCIENCE or “SCIENTISM”, a modern form of MYTHOLOGY? [OPINION]
DOGMA – an established belief or doctrine UNCRITICALLY ACCEPTED to be TRUE; that which SEEMS to one, opinion or belief”
MYTH – a sacred story involving symbols that are usually capable of multiple meanings … can also be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact
Was Darwinism a new “dogma” and “modern” creation “myth” taken on the basis of “BLIND FAITH”
Darwinism raises more questions than it answers.
WHAT “EXPLAINS” “CREATION”? – DARWINIAN ACCIDENT OR DIVINE DESIGN ?
HOW did the universe emerge?
Is the universe simply “material” or is their a dimension of “super-natural”existence and complexity BEYOND the material, “natural” world?
How did inanimate matter become “animate”?
Does/did SIMPLE lead to COMPLEX, or vice versa?
What EXPLAINS (causation) the COMPLEXITY, PURPOSE and DESIGN we observe in the universe?
Does “the evidence” prove a “CLOSED” universe RANDOMLY CREATED ITSELF?
Can anyone “prove” that a force “outside” the material universe, a “transcendent God” in an “open” universe ordered from the OUTSIDE, did NOT create the universe?
A thorough look at “the evidence” should produce the “PROPER” CONCLUSION that the creation and complexity of biological life is STILL an UNSOLVED MYSTERY. The only “scientific certainty” is UN-certainty”.
“SCIENTISM” is a DECEPTIVE MIX of empirical science, NON-EMPIRICAL pseudo-science and philosophy.
“SCIENTISM” is a PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD VIEW [OPINION] that HAS NO “ANSWERS”. [OBSERVABLE EXPLANATIONS]
In the end, “SCIENCE” REVEALS “GOD” (a “creator” with design and purpose) – “SCIENTISM” REJECTS GOD (this world a “creation” of random accident) .
“DARWIN ON TRIAL”
PHILIP E. JOHNSON, Harvard educated, former U.C. Berkeley law professor and law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren: “I approach the creation-evolution dispute NOT as a SCIENTIST but as a professor of LAW. The RULES of ARGUMENT seemed to be structured to make it IMPOSSIBLE to QUESTION whether what we are being TOLD about evolution is REALLY TRUE.
The OBVIOUS difficulties in the Darwinist case were being EVADED by tricky RHETORIC and repetition … the hard questions … answer[ed] with all sorts of evasions and vague language, making it IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the real objections to Darwinism. Darwin’s theory unquestionably has IMPRESSIVE explanatory LOGIC, BUT how are we to tell it’s TRUE?
Charles Darwin’s 1859 book “On the Origin of Species” established EVOLUTION by Common Descent: Proposition #1 – species are not immutable (they can change) Proposition #2 – the evolutionary process accounts for ALL the diversity of life – all living things descended from a small number of common ancestors. Propositions #3 – natural selection or “survival of the fittest” is the “guiding force” of “biological craftmanship”.
Natural selection could accomplish what people in thought required a “creator”.
Darwin made evolution a scientific concept by claiming to show that major transformations could occur in very small steps by purely natural (i.e. “random”) means so that time, chance and differential survival could replace a “miracle”. “Biology is the study of COMPLICATED things that give the APPEARANCE of having been DESIGNED for a PURPOSE” – Richard Dawkins
Does the RANDOM “natural selection” over TIME, COMBINED with UNCHANGING “NATURAL LAWS”, adequately EXPLAIN biological complexity and and variation?
SCIENCE and PSEUDO-SCIENCE
A TAUTOLOGY is a logical semantic, a way of SAYING the SAME THING TWICE. It does NOT EXPLAIN anything. “Natural selection” is a tautology. Johnson: “When I want to know HOW a fish can become a man, I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring are the ones that leave the most offspring.” Absent an EXPLANATION of HOW fundamental transformations can occur … the bare statement that ‘humans evolved from fish’ is not impressive. What makes the fish story impressive and credible is to SHOW HOW a fish changed into a human. Colin Patterson of the British Natural Museum: “A fact of evolution is vaccuous unless it comes with a supporting theory”.
True science is EMPIRICAL – OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE and has EXPLANATORY power.
Was Darwinism so LOGICALLY APPEALING that rigorous EMPIRICAL TESTING was NOT REQUIRED. Darwin shifted the burden of proof and inverted the question. Rather than How much positive evidence is there that complexity CAN arise on it’s own”, Darwin asked, “Is there negative, counter-evidence to disprove the idea?”, making it impossible for a skeptic to prove that evolution could NEVER create complexity.
Was/is Darwinism PSEUDO-SCIENCE, a NEW “DOGMA” and “MODERN” CREATION “MYTH” taken on the basis of “FAITH”, NON-EMPIRICAL “SCIENTISM”? [OPINION] Johnson – “If it is possible for a single species to change by natural processes into … a shark, a frog, etc., then laboratory science should DISCOVER the MECHANISM. [OBSERVATION]
HOW EXACTLY did INANIMATE matter become ANIMATE?
EVIDENCE – The FOSSIL RECORD
Darwin’s most formidable OPPONENTS were NOT clergymen, but FOSSIL EXPERTS. The geological record shows a pattern of catastrophic events involving mass extinctions followed by periods of “creation” in which new forms of life appeared without any trace of evolutionary development. The CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION starts with the ABRUPT APPEARANCE of MANY FULLY FORMED phyla and classes of animals.
Does Darwin’s predictions and theory “fit” the fossil evidence??? The fossil evidence has features inconsistent with Darwinistic gradualism: 1)stasis. 2)sudden appearance. Johnson – “In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind. The outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution but STASIS – the consistent ABSENCE of fundamental directional change – is positively documented STASIS. No change is the NORM and not the exception
The ABSENCE of TRANSITIONAL MEDIARIES was TROUBLING even to Darwin’s loyal supporter T.H. Huxley. Steven Stanley – “The fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stephen Gould – “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record … [i]s the trade secret of paleontology”
Evolutionist Henry Gee states, “Many of the ASSUMPTIONS we make about evolution, especially … the fossil record, are BASELESS. The reason for this lies in the scale of geological time that scientists deal with “each fossil is an infinitesimal dot, lost in the a fathomless sea of time, whose relationship with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is OBSCURE. ANY STORY we tell … which links these fossils in sequences of cause and effect … is OURS to MAKE”
“We INVENT these stories, AFTER the fact, to justify the history of life according to OUR OWN PREJUDICES.”
As J.B. Meyer cogently observed ten years after Darwin first published his theory, “Darwinism is NOT so much a hypothesis proposed to EXPLAIN facts as an INVENTION of FACTS for the support of a HYPOTHESIS”
Stephen Jay Gould describes some popularly accepted evidences of evolution as an “ICONOGRAPHY of PERSUASION that are “incarnations of CONCEPTS MASQUERADING as NEUTRAL DESCRIPTIONS of nature.” Are Darwinists PASSING on THEIR ASSUMPTIONS or hypotheses as though they were OBSERVABLE FACTS? Darwinism MIGHT be correct, BUT what specific, direct, concrete “empirical” evidence do we have of this?
“ICONS of EVOLUTION” – MYTHOLOGY and PROPAGANDA
Deceptive,fallacious “ICONS of EVOLUTION” propagate Darwinist evolutionary ideology. Author Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.s in both religion and in molecular and cell biology) wrote the book “Icons of Evolution”. Welles describes “icons” (images) which all DISTORT or MISREPRESENT the EVIDENCE for “evolution”. “Icons” of Evolution include the MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT, Kettlewell’s Moths and INDUSTRIAL MELANISM, the Darwinian “TREE of LIFE”, HAEKEL’s EMBRYOS and ARCHAEOPTERYX, claimed to be the fossil “link” between reptiles and birds, but was in fact an evolutionary “dead end”. YET most of these examples are STILL used to teach the “fact” of “evolution”.
Finch beak variation suggested that species were not “fixed” – they could “evolve”. However, was beak “evolution” an OSCILLATION between a limited range of possibilities with definite limits to variation. Breeding of domestic animals have produced NO NEW species. Dogs do NOT transform into elephants – they DO NOT have the genetic capacity.
We observe “natural selection” preventing “degeneration” of existing species, not producing “regeneration” of new ones. In a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally, those that can run faster will survive. But no matter how long this process goes on, we do not see it transforming those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer. Does evidence or experience “prove” random mutation can transform one species to another???
“When combined, LAW and CHANCE work against each other to PREVENT the emergence of a meaningful sequence”. Does the disordered “chaos” of random mutation and/or the ordered “tyranny” of natural law account for or EXPLAIN the CREATION of “NEW” COMPLEX life ???
Through natural selection, only the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species are selected out. Have we observed new species, new genetic information, or new organs produced??? Darwin stated: “Natural Selection can do nothing until favorable variations chance to occur” how exactly does “blind” science decide by “random” mutation what is favorable or not? Natural selection serves as a mechanism of eliminating weak individuals WITHIN a species. Is natural selection a conservative force which PRESERVES the EXISTING species from degeneration?
RANDOM CHANCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Johnson: “In all human experience only intelligent agency can write an encyclopedia or computer program. The INFORMATION necessarily present in organisms points to the conclusion that they are PRODUCTS of INTELLIGENCE”.
Biological systems/organs feature “irreducible complexity”- the “simplest” parts of a cell are “COMPLEX” BEYOND OUR UNDERSTANDING. The “simple to complex” Darwinian model is questionable and not evident.
The “INFORMATION QUANDARY”:
Random “evolution” requires mechanisms creating immense amounts of complex specified aperiodic genetic INFORMATION.
What “creates” and “organizes” information towards an end?
Does natural selection have a “will” or “consciousness” to DECIDE what is good, bad or “advantageous”, a will that brings parts-systems together to cause desirable results?
What are the MATHEMATICAL ODDS of CREATION by RANDOM CHANCE?
What are the odds of a tornado flying through a junk yard producing a jumbo jet?
“LAWS” in nature produce simple repetitive order. “When COMBINED, LAW and CHANCE work against each other to prevent the emergence of meaningful sequences. How does disordered “chaos” of random mutation and/or the ordered “tyranny”of natural law account for the creation of complex life? Human experience shows things like a computer program are a product of intelligent design.
COMPUTER SOFTWARE would be useless without the “evolution” of a HARDWARE system to in purposed, designed “synchronicity” to make it actually function.
ORGANS require an intricate COMBINATION of COMPLEX parts to function, not just one part, but INTERRELATED PARTS and SYSTEM.
An EYEBALL is USELESS without an OPTIC NERVE, BRAIN, NERVOUS SYSTEM, etc. “evolving”. Gould asked, “What good is 5% of an eye”? The “evolution” of VISION is much more than just an eye randomly mutation. Biologist Michael Behe uses MOUSE TRAPS as an example. Any failure of “random”, systematic and synchronous “evolution” denying any one of the five essential parts of a mouse trap would make it USELESS. Is “natural selection” an adequate EXPLANATION for the “evolution” of anything as relatively simple as a mouse trap, let alone intricate biological, cosmological, chemical and physics systems necessary for human life?
Life is “balanced on a RAZOR’s EDGE” to produce and maintain life.
Is that a “NATURAL ACCIDENT” or by “SUPERNATURAL DESIGN”?
What are the MATHEMATICAL ODDS of ALL these RANDOMLY SELF-ASSEMBLING?
Is it “BLIND FAITH” to think Darwinian, random “natural selection” adequately EXPLAINS the ORIGIN and MULTIPLICITY of LIFE?
Johnson – “UNLESS scientists can provide an empirically TESTABLE MECHANISM, the CORRECT SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION is that BIOLOGICAL CREATION is an “UNSOLVED MYSTERY”. “EVOLUTION” provides only the ILLUSION of an EXPLANATION.
Does this mean we should not teach Darwinism or “evolution” in our schools? NO. Darwinism IS a great, logical THEORY that “makes sense”. BUT DOES DARWINISM ADEQUATELY “PROVE” or “EXPLAIN” anything?
Does a thorough and honest examination of the EVIDENCE reveal “EVOLUTIONARY” WEAKNESSES, INADEQUACIES, INCONSISTENCIES and overall IGNORANCE?
Is Darwinism a SACRED COW of “SCIENTISM”, pseudo-scientific, MYTHOLOGICAL, FUNDAMENTALIST “BLIND FAITH” that needs to be re-considered and/or SACRIFICED on the “altar” of truly scientific “fact” and “truth”?
WHAT WE “KNOW” and WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW are NOT the SAME.
God and Science: EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS – by David Berlinsky
Has anyone provided a PROOF of GOD’s IN-EXISTENCE? Not even close.
Has [science] EXPLAINED the EMERGENCE of the universe or WHY it is here? NO