Posted on 12/18/2001 7:05:45 AM PST by shrinkermd
Theories come and theories go. Numerous scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur. Scientists have illustrated why the theory is unworkable in many professional books and journals; yet, because of media hype, news coverage, and "nature programs" often aired on TV, the public is largely unaware that scientists disagree sharply upon their diverse speculations. For every theory advanced by man, someone else has advanced facts to prove that theory wrong. Let us look briefly at what some of the scientists themselves say about the big bang theory.
1."The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability that a single molecule of high dissymmetry could be formed by the action of chance. De Nouy found that, on an average, the time needed to form one such molecule of our terrestrial globe would be about 10 to the 253 power billions of years. "But," continued de Nouy, ironically, "let us admit that no matter how small the chance it could happen, one molecule could be created by such astronomical odds of chance. However, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science" (Quoted in "Is Science Moving Toward Belief in God?" by Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, Nov. 7, 1985; cited in Kingdoms In Conflict, C. Colson, p. 66).
2."Probably the strongest argument against a 'big bang' is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little" (G. Burbidge, Was There Really A Big Bang in Nature?, 233:3640).
3."This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target-a building for example-that anything happens... But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead" (Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92, 1981, pp. 521, 523).
4."The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point. The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, 'is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. 'If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms" (Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, 1984, p. 415).
5."The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed" (W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297). Still MORE Quotes Concerning Cosmology-Origins of the Universe
6."If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool" (Voltaire).
7."The choice is simple: one chooses either a self-existent God or a self-existent universe-and the universe is not behaving as if it is self-existent" (A.J. Hoover).
8."The statements of people who do not believe do not outweigh the circumstantial evidence that suggests the universe was the intelligent design of a Creator" (Russell DeLong).
9."I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory" (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician, and evolutionist, Cambridge University). "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence" (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University).
10."When I make an incision with my scalpel, I see organs of such intricacy that there simply hasn't been enough time for natural evolutionary processes to have developed them" (C. Everett Koop, former US Surgeon General).
11."The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove" (Dr. Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and eminent evolutionist).
12."The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge" (Dr. A. Fleishmann, zoologist, Erlangen University).
13."It is good to keep in mind that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted" (Prof. R Goldschmidt Ph.D., DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution, Yale Univ. Press).
14."The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency" (Prof. J Agassiz, of Harvard in Methods of Study in Natural History).
15."Evolution is baseless and quite incredible" (Dr. Ambrose Fleming, President, British Assoc. Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought).
16."Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.... The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words" (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267).
17."It is possible and, given the Flood, probable that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years" (Gerald Aardsman, Ph.D., physicist and C-14 dating specialist).
18."We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists" (Edmund Ambrose, evolutionist).
19."The best physical evidence that the earth is young is the dwindling resource that evolutionists refuse to admit is dwindling the magnetic energy in the field of the earth's dipole magnet. To deny that it is a dwindling resource is phony science" (Thomas Barnes Ph.D., physicist).
20."No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution" (Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist).
21."It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test" (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p. 89).
22."Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond anything produced by the intelligence of man?" (Molecular biologist Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985 p. 342).
23."Modern apes...seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humansis, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter" (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., evolutionist).
24."Although bacteria are tiny, they display biochemical, structural and behavioral complexities that outstrip scientific description. In keeping with the current microelectronics revolution, it may make more sense to equate their size with sophistication rather than with simplicity. Without bacteria life on earth could not exist in its present form" (James A. Shipiro, "Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms," Scientific America, Vol. 258, No. 6, June 1988).
25."Eighty to eighty-five percent of earth's land surface does not have even three geological periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods" (John Woodmorappe, geologist).
26."That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates' retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order" (H. S. Hamilton MD, The Retina of the Eye-An Evolutionary Road Block).
27."My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed" (N. H. Nilson, famous botanist and evolutionist).
28."None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another" (Luther Sunderland, science researcher).
29."The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal-ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. Hence the amazing quantity of literature on the subject ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man" (John Reader, "Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, Vol. 89, No. 12446, March 26, 1981, pp. 802805).
30."The evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before" (Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.).
31."The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation" (Niles Eldridge, Ph.D.., paleontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History).
32."A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist campmoreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully" (Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician).
33."As yet we have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated" (John Adler with John Carey: "Is Man a Subtle Accident," Newsweek, Vol. 96, No. 18, November 3, 1980, p. 95).
34."Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, Ph.D., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, Sep. 1974, p. 467).
35."Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They've discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory" (Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th Edition, Santee, California: Master Books, 1988, pp. 7,8).
36."The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds" (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist).
37."Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" (S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, London: Croom Helm, p. 422).
38."If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze" (Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p. 174).
39."In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge or even a new enzyme" (Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp. 34, 38).
40."The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature" (George Simpson, paleontologist and evolutionist).
41."Evolution is unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionist). What the Experts Say Concerning Fossils Three of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are: 1) There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. 2) The alleged process cannot be duplicated even with the best minds under the strictest laboratory conditions. 3) Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully formed when first present. If the theory of evolution were true, we would expect to find many more transitional forms of life than fully formed ones, and yet we never find "half-formed" hands, feet, flippers, fins, eyes, ears, noses, or feathers. The hypothesis that "pre-men" existed is an ambiguous conjecture at best. Upon investigation, virtually all so-called "missing links" turn out to be bones of apes, men, or historical frauds.
42."Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
43."most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
44."As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
45."The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
46."The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
47."The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
48."In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
49."Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
50."I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
51."So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
52."It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
53."I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).
What the Experts Say Concerning DNA
Science has recently unraveled one of the most amazing facts of all concerning heredity. DNA, a shortened name for deoxyribonucleic acid, has been found to be the carrier of the inheritance code in all living things. It constitutes a built-in memory, blueprint, or biogenetic law that keeps all forms of life within their basic kinds. Your personal DNA is scattered throughout your body in over 60 thousand billion specks and determines everything from your eye color and height to your fingerprints. The DNA barrier insures that neither mutations nor natural "selection" nor any other factor proposed by advocates of evolution could result in the forming of a different kind of life from a previous kind.
54."The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first-the DNA which is essential for the synthesis of proteins or the protein enzyme DNA-polymerase without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'" (George Howe, expert in biology sciences).
55."The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long" (Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication," Scientific America, Vol. 259, No. 2, August 1988, pp. 4046).
56."DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism-a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet" (Paul S. Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, p. 23).
57."Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court" (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space).
58."An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence" (Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Robert L. Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, New York Philosophical Library, 1984, pp. 211, 212).
59."Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA. All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threateningif mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion" (Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication...," Scientific America, Vol. 299, No 2, August 1988, pp. 4044, p. 24).
60."In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology" (Arthur Koestler, author).
61."Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life" (David A. Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainesville).
62."Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences even to the limit of God such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist).
63."Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, p. 358).
64."Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice-between logic and emotion-between fact and fiction.In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail-no matter what the final result is-no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end-no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution and amended thereafter is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science" (I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong-A Study in Probabilities, PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., pp. 68, 209210, 214215. I. L. Cohen is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
65."The notion that the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order" (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, evolutionist).
66."The theory of Evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has" (Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher). 67."We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes'" (K. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich).
68."Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies" (Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 127).
69."Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology-professors and textbook writers included-have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it. College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit [of] knowledge. Education becomes a fraud" (George Kocan, "Evolution Isn't Faith But Theory," Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 21, 1980).
70."Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact" (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist).
71."Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Dr. Louise Bounoure, director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, director of the Zoological Museum, and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg).
72."I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man-so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos-all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself.Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the One who did called Himself The Logos. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything-'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well" (Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D., D.Sc., Dr. es. Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Santee, California: Master Books, p. 154). Charles Darwin's Own Admission Finally, let us notice what Charles Darwin himself admitted about his own the theory of evolution.
73."If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, New York University Press, 6th ed., 1988, p. l54).
74."To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter: "Difficulties").
75."Not one change of species into another is on record. we cannot prove that a single species has been changed" (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters). Two Antithetic Views In review, basically there are only two antithetic views of the origin of the universe. There are no others. Either Almighty God created all matter, the physical laws of the universe, and life itself in all its myriad forms, or there is no God in the universe, no supernatural Being, and all matter, laws, and life came into existence out of nothing of their own accord.
Either there is a Creator or there isn't. It's as simple as that. Millions have settled for the first option-special creation. Sadly, special creation is rarely taught in the schools and institutions today. Millions have opted for the second option evolution,where it is taught in most colleges and classrooms as though it were fact.
The theory of evolution remains unproved and unprovable. Though special creation also cannot be proved in a laboratory, the lack of evidence in the fossil records and the DNA code of living creatures should lead the unbiased mind to the inevitable conclusion that of the two possibilities, special creation is the more rational.
Which viewpoint society bases its faith upon eventually determines the behavior of that society. If the youth are taught that they came from apes, then the "law of the jungle"-the survival of the fittest-will predominate and no one should be surprised at the moral collapse of society, particularly amongst the youth. They are merely living out the "law of the jungle" as taught to them by their elders.
Okay, that's a fair question.
Ever since I was a little guy, I always wondered "why is it harder to build a house of cards, than to knock it down?" Well as you know, the structure of the house depends on the nature of the cards (size, shape, rigidity), and the order they are arranged (how they are stacked). When you build the card house, you are using the qualities of the cards to maintain the arraignment. Now the arraignment is not a quality inherent to the cards, but they will maintain the arraignment within certain parameters. And just like d@mn near everything else in the universe, the complexity of the cardhouse is inversely proportional to its stability. The bigger I make it, the more careful I have to be, because it's easier to knock over. The tolerance for error gets tighter and tighter the further along I get.
So flash forward to chemistry class. I find out that each and every chemical, or molecule if you will, works exactly the same way. In concept, I can think of them like building blocks with a wide variety of characteristics. Sure there's all kinds of different ways for them to bond, and some are solid as a rock once you get them together. But for the most part, they too fall apart easier than they go together. A few classes later, I find out that organics are some of the most complex of any molecular structures, and the organics themselves have to be in very tight arraignments in order for qualities inherent to very specific chemicals to form mechanisms. And so on up the ladder it goes from these molecules, to organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.
All the while, I've been growing up with the theory of evolution, and that makes perfect sense to me too. Except for one thing, I notice that I never hear a critical discussion of evolution...ever. And I expect that I should because there are alot of details I ask about that seem to get my teachers real frustrated. So I ask myself "if these guys are so sure about how life started, how come they can't make it in a pitri dish or something?" Add that to the fact that no one ever seriously questions the idea and I start to think this needs some looking into.
Well the only other game in town was the whole Adam and Eve thing, which I never gave much credit after I got into grade school. But like I said, it's the only other explaination that people who actually comb their hair seem to consider a possibility, so that's the direction I started looking. Eventually I listen to a lecture by a guy named A.E. Wilder-Smith who has credentials out the ying yang and his topic is what he calls "the great debate." In this lecture, he explains exactly how Huxley the evolutionist beats Bishop Wilburforce the creationist, and he does it in a way that makes perfect sense. He then procedes to explain exactly what dodge ( a very subtly faulted analogy relating to the nature of chemical equalibria) it was that Huxley used to win. Much to my surprise, his explaination is an expansion of what I figured out on my own about card houses. He also says Huxley's argument is still the one used today by evolutionists everywhere.
Now everytime I would ask someone, who'd swear on his mother's grave evolution was a proven fact, how they explained biogenesis they'd treat me like a Doctor being asked about Chiropractors. So I put them in roughly the same catagory. For most things, my M.D. is pretty good, but sometimes there are things he just can't fix. So I just keep quiet to the MD. I know, for whatever reason, he'd rather let me overdose trying to figure out what pill HE can give me that will work, than admit the Chiropractor can help anything at all.
A few more years go by and I hear about "Darwin's black box" by Behe. He says that not only is biogenesis a real loser for evolutionary theory, but he introduces a concept he calls "irreducable complexity" and procedes, step by step, to explain exactly what he means. And it makes alot of sense.
Finally, I hear of this guy Dembski. He uses the same math used in the building of computers, the actual guts part (if I understand correctly), to evaluate the kind of actual information resident in biological structures. I don't remember all the details, but I do remember when I read his papers, he explained step by step, exactly what he was talking about. And it made alot of sense.
So what really convinces me the ID theorists are right and Evolutionists are wrong, is the ID guys don't seem to have any problem explaining exactly what they mean. And the Evolutionists always act like it's my fault when they don't want to lay out their refutations, step by step, like the ID guys. The only reason I can think of that explains why none of them ever do this is because they can't.
If you do, you'll be the first.
With a negative proof. One can demonstrate that all other reasonably possible theories are false based upon scientific arguments.
Just as it is possible to point out the internal contradictions of all non-theistic philosophies (like materialism, Hegelianism, pantheism, relativism), it is logically possible that all non-creation theories of human origins can be demonstrated scientifically to be false.
This is the approach that the ID movement, and Johnson in particular, is using (and Medved here). Johnson is content to demonstrate the impossibility of evolutionary theory without providing a definitive "solution" for human origins. He's content to leave the subject of human origins as an open question, which it is, given our very limited knowledge.
***********
On the other hand, we can positively proove the existence of a Creator through unaided reason. But the proof is logical, not scientific.
One very funny and true line from an outstanding post (#102).
Johnson's book "broke the dam" for me.
2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle)[how?]. By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
4. The invaginations deepen.[how?] Muscles are moved around slightly[how?], allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen.[so?] [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison[how?]. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis. [how?]
6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear.[how?] (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.[where'd that come from?]
7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. [how?]Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior. [how?]
8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. [how?]The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. [how?]
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. [so? The question is, how did they arise?]The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder.[so?] [Forsyth, 1970]
9. Muscles adapt which close off the reservior[how?], thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
10. Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. [how?]The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense. [huh?]
11. Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir[miraculously?], outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
12. More catalases and peroxidases are produced[how?], so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction.
13. The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction. [how?]
14. Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced,[how?] and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. [how?]Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
15. The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible[how?], allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.
There's a reason why critics of evolution call such theories "just-so stories." There's no scientific explanation or evidence here. Just someone's active imagination.
St. Thomas' five ways for prooving the existence of God.
The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas is a good resource for Thomistic terminology.
Strictly, yes. Logic and reason are pretty much synonymous, except for the qualification you've mentioned. Reason would have been a better word.
Unlike strict logic, reason can provide fundamental metaphysical insights. With reason, propositional principles do not recede infinintely, but reduce to First Principles.
For example, one can logically understand the principle of causality. But reason tells us that a chain of causes cannot recede infinitely (since an actual infinite series cannot exist), that something cannot come from nothing, and that nothing can cause itself (since the thing would have to precede itself in existence). We can then logically conclude that a First (uncaused) Cause must exist.
Your proposition assumes that you know every argument ever made for the existence of God and that you know and can demonstrate that these arguments are false. Moreover, your suggestion that "it cannot be proven that God exists" implies that you know all future arguments that will be proposed for the existence of God and you know and can prove them to be false.
It's a rather God-like position to take.
Can you point out the flaws in St. Thomas' "five ways" that prove the existence of God?
Moreover, an infinite series can exist; in fact, such a series can be summed to a definitive value (calculus helps with that).
Certainly an infinite series can exist theoretically. An infinite series cannot exist in actuality because in becoming actual, the series becomes finite.
In addition, something can come from nothing. Virtual particles appear from nothing and are the cause of a black hole's evaporation. They, in fact, are their own cause since causality has no meaning, in quantum mechanics, for time periods less than 10-43 seconds (the time period during which virtual particles come into existence).
Something can come from absolutely nothing? Doesn't that require infinite power?
It seems that "reason," in your example, is grounded in experience -- in Netwonian mechanics to be precise -- and would not give us accurate conclusions according to a more recent fairly well experimentally verified quantum mechanical view.
Experimentally verified quantum mechanical views can only be explicated through reasonable propositions. Even quantum physics cannot escape the laws of reason.
Yea...you did miss it. You evolution guys have such a hard for going after a creator you miss what the ID guys are saying. They aren't arguing for a creator. They are proving evolution is insufficient to explain the observations. As long as you keep jumping to the theological implications instead of dealing with the actual arguments made, you're going to continue to look like the guys that drove Ignaz Semelweiss {sp?} nuts.
I remember a three day running argument I had with a friend over time being an absolute. I tried to show him time is a physical property of matter, and he was having none of it. He insisted he wasn't going to buy it till he saw it in print. I kept trying to tell him "Dave,you can work it out for yourself! You don't need to see it in print."
"You believe E equals MC squared, right?"
"You believe in Algebra, don'tcha?"
"Can't you isolate 'time' in the equation?"
And "can't it vary according to the other factors?"
"Then how can you say it's absolute?"
This guy spent three days reaching so far up his butt searching for come-backs, I'm surprised he didn't toss me a molar or two.
He finally relented when I brought him a xerox copy of a page out of the encyclopedia that verified what I was saying.
The point is...he already had all the tools he needed to convince himself, he just wasn't going to risk it unless someone with a lot of letters after their name said it was okay.
It's alright to take the word of authorities, but not when they start trying to convince you two plus two doesn't have to equal four. Isn't that what being a conservative is all about? Don't we thumb our noses at "educators" whose sole claim to authority seems to be they're "professional," because our homeschool kids are running rings around theirs? We can pi$$ around all day long about quantum mechanics and causality, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about carbon, hydrogen, phosphorus, and we know how they act. Heisenberg doesn't have a thing to do with it. Molecules just don't act the way evolution says they *must*.
I'm not gonna go for a bunch of baloney about how "x must have y'd" when you can't show how "x" "y"s all the time, or even why "x" would bother to "y" aside from it supports your theory of "x""y"ing. I'm still trying to get some kind of answer on how the he!! you evolve an instinct. That's *nothing but* information. "Random" information?...hardwired into animals? Unless someone can explain to me why that's *not* doubletalk, as far as I'm concerned, "it walks like a duck."
You guys are plenty smart enough to evaluate what both sides have to say without someone telling you it's okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.