The Narrow Boundaries of Religious Science
The current standard of evolutionary belief has reached staggering proportions. Southern Baptists never reached such fanatical indoctrination which evolutionists have. They have broken into the school system and have seized the political control of power, gaining support from all those insecure of their own personal estate of convictions. If one wishes to hold social prominence then they better get in step with the latest belief fashions.
However, this belief has some serious inconsistencies to it. Evolution is not seal proof. On the contrary it leaks throughout, but the fanatical believers uphold their ground without the need for logical consistency. When illogical and unreasonable flaws are pointed out the response is quick, “Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
When such a hard and narrow belief system entrenches itself as Evolutionism has done, logic and reason run great opposition and resistance. One is ready to hear a “don’t confuse with facts” comments to result. Rational argument indeed makes great headway to disprove the interwoven faith of Evolutionism, but the true believers just hold their ground all the firmer quickly abandoning reason, instead turning to ridicule and scorn. They faithfully stand behind the assertions of their cultic leaders, quoting them like a desperate Pharisee quoting Moses.
But consider some of the obvious oversights of the Evolutionist faith.
1) If we humans have really evolved from apes, then why are there still apes running around the world. Shouldn’t that be a dilapidated species by now, superseded by our own human imperialistic refinement?
2) Why would humans discard some pretty useful applications of the body, such as wings and gills? We somehow evolved and retained a virtuously useless appendix didn’t we? Go to any presentation on flight and the speech always begins with “humans have always held the passion for flight,” but if Evolutionism is true then we have a problem because at some point our evolving refinement decided to discard the notion all together.
And what about gills? If we started out with them in the first place as we supposedly spent all our time in the ocean, then why drop them? The earth’s surface is mostly made up of water, it seems a rather handy human benefit for life on such a planet.
3) “Survival of the Fittest” is one of their greatest verses, taught to grade school children. Whatever species was strong enough would trample out the old species and stand victor over the field of survival and apparently earning the reward of advancing to the next level of human enhancement.
Such a brutal insight posed by Evolutionists. How could such a loving model of Darwin’s conviction for truth appeal to such barbarity? If they promote such pain and suffering in their system how can they expect respect in the broader market of scientific truth.
A simple sampling of Hitler’s Third Reich inner circle will serve as an able example of such barbarity. It’s no secret they were converts to Darwin’s way, proposing such superiority of species to justify their extermination of the “so-called” lower species of Jews. The holocaust was a natural outgrowth of such brutal faith.
4) Another tenant of their faith is the continual march of human development. Over the millennia, humans have been gradually improving themselves with refinement unmatched by any other ingenuity in human history!
But really? Is that really the case? Go look in a full length mirror and ask yourself the simple question, is this really the apex of a millennia of refinement? Is this the goal of that googly blob climbing out of the primordial goo to achieve this?
Let me ask some simple questions, if we are developing by the sheer determination of our human will then why don’t all the women look more like the models from “Victoria Secret” along with the intelligence of Albert Einstein? Why don’t all men look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, along with the wit of Woody Allen and a compassionate heart like that of Mother Teresa? Yet such features happen so seldom that when they do appear we celebrate the surprise with awards and sonnets of praise. How could such a superior species get it so wrong?
Wouldn’t that natural innate human determination have resolved all the issues of obesity and those all so frustrated with their height issues? Combine human determination with human competitiveness and . . . goodness, I don’t think I can even stomach those consequences. Would we even have been able to survive that combination if macro-evolution is true?
5) The Evolutionist mathematics system … seriously? For such dramatic acclaim to scientific precision does falling back on the rhetoric of “billion and billions of years of development” (as one of their dynamic prophets would preach) really warrant much credibility? When in doubt just spread the playing field into areas where there was absolutely no one around to verify anything happening on the field. For those who have not bought the Evolutionist religion yet they can see the warranted skepticism a discerning mind ought to hold, but for those who have already cashed in their sense of discernment it soothes away the inhibiting wandering notions. “Oh, yeah, that must be it … give it enough time and surely these creatures would have found a way to negotiate the progress.”
Does disciplined research play any part of this? Well, of course not. That’s why they must project their faith over such long courses of undocumented speculation. But if your mind is already made up then it’s no problem. The faithful Evolutionist knows they must acknowledge the Emperor’s new clothes as absolutely adorable. Those who question the idol of “Status Quo” risk a terrible price of retribution; a veritable purgatory in the realm of career advancement and social acceptance. That inner circle means everything to the lonely scoffer suffering from an objectivity syndrome.
6) The Cambrian Explosion. Even Darwin himself admitted the flaw this reality imposed on his new found band of disciples. Their “good book” has errors and contradictions in it which even their founder confessed.
During one of their theoretical ages, it seems that life did not just gradually appear in the fossil evidence, it showed up in overwhelming displays of evidence, but with little signs of actual “development.” The fossils are too numerous to discount.
The faithful Evolutionist will throw out some righteous rhetoric of “fossils yet to be found,” but even staunch religious fundamentalists never venture that far in their reasons for radical faith. They still believe it even when there is no evidence for believing it. Even their founder, Darwin, admitted this lapse of proof,
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
“If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.”
(Quotes from Origin of Species, chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”)
For the skeptical enquirer, we can only shake our heads in wonder over why they persist in such naïve and simplistic faith against the evidence. Another example of making up their mind before all the evidence for consideration had arrived. If they dared to balance all the information before arriving to their faith would they really have been able to overlook these dubious findings? For sure, their skepticism is evident in the way they scathe the long held views of Creationism even though they usually miss the point by applying everything they assume on a Young Earth theory of six days creation. The naïve approach is further exacerbated by their always quoting from the King James Version. When was the last time you guys went to church?!?! Is that all the more you know about 21st Century Christianity?
Seriously, the six day creation theory is held by very few people. The Bible itself does not even teach this. Since the measurement of a 24 hour day is marked by the planet’s revolving to the sun, and the sun was not created until day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19); then how were days 1 – 3 determined to be 24 hour durations? God is well above our worldly scheme of time. The Genesis idea of “day” never came with a clock measure, but is to be understood metaphorically as distinctive eras (see St. Augustine, Origen and Philo for a few early religious leaders who held to this view).
The “God Created Evolution” project observes this familiar development of life as follows,
Day 1 – Heavens, Earth, Oceans, Light
Day 2 – Oxygenated Atmosphere
Day 3 – Land and Plant Life
Day 4 – Sun, Moon, and Stars Set in Firmament
Day 5 – Life from the Sea through Birds
Day 6 – Living Creatures from the Land
Note, the “days” are from Genesis chapter one!
So now the question is turned on its head. Why did Darwin reinvent the scheme of Genesis chapter one, and then claim it as his own invention? Not only do Evolutionists skewer their logic they are also guilty of plagiarizing their basic system from the very source they vent their hostility toward. What a confused band of bewildering disciples!
7) By the way, just for casual consideration. Has anyone else noticed that the fossil evidence is going the wrong way? Shouldn’t the fossils be revealing a progress in size of the primordial creatures? And yet a simple check of the brontosaurus reveals something amiss in their doctrine. Am I being a little too subjective to state that those ancient skeletons look bigger than the modern cows they supposedly became? Shouldn’t those missing links involve small entities “growing” into cows instead of “shrinking” into cows?
8) Did their founder secretly hold faith in God? What a bludgeoning blow to their foundational attack on their life long grudge! And yet there it is in their Bible, “The Origin of Species,” Darwin acknowledges the “other side” by referring to their God as “Creator.”
In the closing paragraph of certain editions of The Origin of Species, there appears a reference by Charles Darwin to a “Creator.” The passage reads as follows:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
However, not all editions of the book contain this “Creator” reference. It seems pressure was exerted to cover up such a scandal in ensuing editions to hurriedly get that “creator” belief out of their sacred writing of anti-God hopes. They are trying to rid themselves of divine accountability and the fear of having to admit they may not be as smart as they espouse themselves to be.
“I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities in anyone.”
– Charles Darwin, foreword to On the Origin of Species, 1859
9) Irreducible Complexity. This simple logical premise defines the intensity of gullibility in the Evolutionist faith. Simply stated, a sensory organ must be established in whole. For example, a human eye cannot develop in gradations. It is theorized that over 1800 gradations would be required with each step following the previous in precise and immediate and “directed” development. None of the steps can happen by accident. In short, the eye ball needs to happen all at once.
Darwin even admitted the absurdity of believing the eye could have formed by incremental progress,
“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 possible degree.”
(Origin of Species, Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory”)
And what of motivation in these sensory organs. If this primordial mass (on its way to “humanness”) does not have the ability to know there is light out there, then how could it be stimulated toward something it has no way of knowing is there? How can movement toward an objective be produced when it has no idea there is something to become? If the whole process is a series of biological “accidents” then that requires the acceptance of an entity “out of control.” It supposedly moves and develops toward which it has absolutely no notion of going there.
10) Eigen’s Paradox poses serious consternation in the study of the origins of life. Following the “Error Threshold” idea it exposes the ugly truth about the size limits of self-replicating molecules to perhaps a few hundred digits. However, nearly all development of life on earth requires much longer molecules to encode their genetic information. It is supposed that enzymes may repair mutations, but the accidental (“accidental” because evolutionism denies any intelligent coordination of all this repair work) is not a matter of one or two remarkable blind steps, but in fact it must extend to millions of base pairs. These large molecules must, of course, encode the very enzymes that repair them, and herein lies Eigen’s paradox, first put forth by Manfred Eigen in his 1971 paper. Simply stated, Eigen’s paradox amounts to the following:
- Without error correction enzymes, the maximum size of a replicating molecule is about 100 base pairs.
- For a replicating molecule to encode error correction enzymes, it must be substantially larger than 100 bases.
Evolutionism is asking an extraordinary amount of “faith” to make itself work.
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” ― Malcolm Muggeridge
11) The Second Law of Thermodynamics reflects a natural estate of material reality; over time things weaken, degenerate and decay. Left to its own things will never improve on their own. Our bodies get older, never younger. Muscle tone naturally atrophies, never builds unattended. And this includes the universe which is reluctantly subject to ongoing entropy, weakening and diminishing over Sagan’s “billions and billions’ of years. In fact, we’re not getting better, just older. As for the universe, our days (millennia) are numbered.
But the Second Law of Thermodynamics also bears ill evidence for the evangelists of evolution. Things left on their own never improve. A closed system will not thrive and develop; the arrow of time drives itself downwards into disarray. It’s already bordering on lunacy that something could develop out of nothing, but how could the miraculous organism then begin to develop in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It’s not as though the theory suddenly activated when Planck (1897/1903) and Bailyn (1994) proposed it. They did not invent it, they discovered the principle already in place. Unless one has already undergone the evolutionism brainwashing, this contradiction in their scriptures simply defeats its own fantasies.
12) Planetary precision. Our planet is precisely set in orbit in order to sustain life. Any closer and the whole project is purged by the sun’s intense heat. Any further away and the cold dread of our universe chills out any hope for life. NASA is spending incredible amounts of research, energy, time, and etc., to find other life in the universe (“Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” — SETI) and so far all this investment has produced … [drum roll, please] … nothing! Not one bit of evidence in any galaxy anywhere. Desperation forces them to assert “possibilities” and gung-ho logic of “it’s just gotta be there,” and yet nothing ever comes of it.
NASA research tapped the collective gullibility of our society with notions that rocks on Mars have somehow flown off the planet (??) and came to earth to illustrate the possibilities. Again, let me just say, “Really? Rocks mysteriously launch themselves into deep space like a Harry Potter incantation and came to planet earth?” Yeah, they actually receive paychecks for that stuff.
13) Evolutionists “Over”-reaction. A simple perusal of Amazon.com will reveal a peculiar hypocrisy of so-called objective scientists innocently searching for truth in and of itself, that when the truth arrives they will honestly bow to that. But it’s all a ruse. Like good religious fundamentalists, they have already decided what that destination shall be. However, whenever a scientist proposes ideas with well backed research not supporting their blessed notions, they seek to crucify such a one as a heretic.
Scientific knowledge, even in the most modest persons, has mingled with it a something which partakes of insolence. Absolute, peremptory facts are bullies, and those who keep company with them are apt to get a bullying habit of mind.
Oliver Wendell Homes, Sr.
The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table (1858)
The recent publication of Stephen C. Meyer, “Darwin’s Doubt,” is a prime example of such hypocrisy. As soon as the book was released, that very day the Evolutionary fundamentalists have crowned it with a one star rating and scathing reviews. Really? This is a good sized book, coming in at 400+ pages. Did they really take the time to read and process all this within a few hours to get their post in the reviews?
On two counts, the answer is no. Just as they have used speculation as a cover for their boasted research so have they consistently used that to assault anyone who disagrees with them. Objective reason exposes their shallow agenda, especially their vocabulary of “scientific intellect” upon any who dare to disagree, such as “lazy,” “idiot,” “fraud,” “liar” who hawks “error-prone” “snake-oil,” “gobbledygook,” “pseudo-science,” etc., etc. Now there is a hefty reflection of highly educated seekers of objective truth. (yes, Sheldon, that was cynicism).
And secondly, read the reviews – they are not even rambling about Meyer‘s book. They are just ranting like a backwoods curmudgeon on his porch espousing their grumpy irritations with life. There’s little there addressing the argument at hand, just the old stale rhetoric of years gone by.
As William Shakespeare in Hamlet reminds us,
“Me thinketh he protesteth too much!”
Honest thought is able to handle dialogue and refinement of ideas. When such objective considerations are exposed one quickly sees just how insecure these fundamentalist believers really are. Just exactly how much doubt reside in these souls to muster up such emotionally charged over-reactions?
Richard Dawkins again displays his hypocrisy by his definition of science being “open to evidence,” and then proceeds to bombast anyone who defies his narrow opinions which he tries to pass off as scientific “open to evidence.” Apparently the only “evidence” that matters to Dawkins is his own bias. What are these Evolution fundamentalists so worried about, anyway? If their Evolution faith is so certain then why can’t they rally enough faith to allow open and objective consideration? Do they not believe our highly developed human species can handle the truth or bias?
“Evolution is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or… can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D. M. S. Watson, “Science and the BBC” (April 1943)
14) Richard Leakey, another early prophet of their movement further reveals the lost quest of objectivity. Find some of the older Omni magazine and read some of the reports of his fund raising events preceding his famous archeological digs in remote (“was any accountability there”) Africa. Leakey would fire up the crowd with expertise that Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert would have been impressed by the offering which poured in for his service to humanity.
He took great liberty boasting and predicting (AKA “prophesying”) of his effort to find “Lucy” and clarify the theory of the missing link once and for all.
Uhm …, isn’t that sort of boasting supposed to come AFTER the finding of possible evidence? If Leaky has a prize to lay at the shrine of Evolutionism, then isn’t it supposed to come with dignified scientific objectivity? He already has his mind decided about what he will find and so if he finds anything not supporting his quest or even contradicting his quest, how quickly will he discard or even destroy that evidence. In remote Africa, who would know?? Like a true fundy, Leaky seeks to “proof-text” what he already believes, instead of responding to evidence to stimulate his belief.
15) Gaps. Fossil evidence shows movement (AKA “Adaptation”) within the species, that is true. However, none of this movement ever at any time makes any steps crossing over to other [supposed] improved or superior creatures. All of the fossil evidence stays within its own parameters.
Examine the fossils of ancient and modern squirrels. The true believer Evolutionist will arrange them according to preconceived notions about how the fossils ought to be arranged to show gradients of development. The fossils are ordered according to size and complexity, yet the end result still only shows alterations within the same species. No broad evidence is available to support faith in the macro-evolution scheme of progress.
“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
“The ‘big bang,’ that today is considered to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the creative intervention of God, on the contrary it requires it.”
— Pope Francis
Reality, Evolutionism has lots and lots of “gaps.” There’s way too much disconnect to hold together. Any objective free mind would see this. But if you have already closed your thinking and given away your sense of independent reasoning, then we are back to marveling over the Emperor’s New Clothes (see Aesop).
E. J. Carnall brings this to light in his “Threshold Evolution” paradigm, (before Intelligent Design commandeered his thoughts),
“But let us challenge the validity of the ‘total’ evolution scheme. Paleontology reveals that there are actual gaps in our knowledge of the relation between the ‘kinds,’ a datum which ‘threshold’ evolution can account for more smoothly than a ‘total’ evolution…. When science is faced with these gaps, it resorts to such hypotheses as ‘missing links’ (which are still missing!) and ‘mutations,’ while the Christian needs only to point to the fact that God, in the original creation, decreed that gaps should exist to mark off the original ‘kinds’ — herbs yielding seeds, creeping things, beasts, etc.”
16) Cui Bono. Investigating any matter to reach an understanding of the real story, the Latin adage cui bono is a most excellent tool of mining evidence. “Who profits” opens the doors to deeper goals and purposes. Sometimes refined as “Follow the dollar,” the submerged agenda begins to draw light upon its operation.
What do evolutionists have in advocating their religious pursuits of materialism? Same as any other objective; fame, fortune and notoriety. Many research scientists are making a living, some with impressive profit, through applying, validating and playing out funding for the pioneering work of human origins. If they are good enough, TV has many opportunities, from National Geographic, Live Science, Discovery channel … and the list goes on and on evolving at far greater leaps than naturalist evolution ever ventured. If they prove points and assert the “newest and latest” breakthroughs, the seminar/lecture circuit awaits.
Unfortunately plain truth is not always the quest. If one wishes to reach the mythical goal of being published, more than simple facts will suffice, since those have already been established. What is there to publish in what is already established and already published? Something more must be proposed. Only the new and shocking will make it to Time and Newsweek. “Scientist Proves a Bunch of Stuff we Already Knew” just isn’t going to cut it. Magazines and bookstores need some shock and zing effect to get sales moving along to profits. Creativity on steroids is what our modern publishing houses are seeking. Mix in a little dazzle, innuendo, and contrary logic and you just might have something to draw interest. Those lines separating the National Enquirer lost their distinctions years ago. Objective and balanced research simply does not reap the rewards they should. It’s not just pushing the boundaries, but completely by-passing the boundaries of valid research whenever possible. So either suffer for your convictions or reach for the golden ring.
We live in an age like ancient Athens. The people gathered to the philosophers to hear the new and the latest. Traveling philosophers could make a living with a new and all-be-it “weird” notion about how life works. Ever notice how close “Science Fiction” moved among those eccentric circles; not just a distant relative, but more like a split in the personality? When you have exhausted all the down to earth plans and theories, a little time off the ground might not hurt … or would it. Compromised truth can yield reasonable profits in a yearning world.
“All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
17) Tribe Trumps Truth. Deny it all you want, but fitting in with one’s subculture is a dreaded oppression we all face. Step out of line and risk being ostracized. Rejection is a consequence few can endure and none wish to experience. Once a dominate status quo has been established this hold becomes merciless. A modern scientist must stifle personal perspectives if they contradict popular opinion. It is simply an established fact that there are things one must not verbalize. Think it all you want, but like religion in China, never utter the tugging of your convictions. Speak the fashionable language or suffer the consequences. Toe the line, or face a fate worse than death; menial labor.
Evolutionism has exerted such an oppressive force over materialistic science that the parameters are set. The scholastic imprimatur demands adherence, else face intellectual banishment.
Greater the insecurity the greater the reaction … and over-reaction
An institution unsure of itself will be all the more vigilant to keep its ranks in order and ever on guard form defectors. Such paranoia may escalate to extraordinary heights when the risk of loss is great. The old Soviet Union constructed a massive “wall” to keep its ranks safely ensconced within its grasp. Institutions seeking power and control will always erect such guarded parameters, whether literal or ideologically. Whether by brick and guard warning shots or snickering and degrading the outcome works to the same goals of keeping the adherents in order.
Cults are a perfect example of such manipulation, whether they be religious or social. When power and control are at stake they will do whatever it takes to seize it and then to preserve it. The walls shall be constructed and the herd shall conform. It takes a truly brave individual to break from the pack and climb out. The conviction of truth must build great strength to fuel such courage.
“The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.”
— Rollo May
18) Consciousness. Evolutionism is hopelessly lost confined within their own restrictive parameters of materialism. If it doesn’t fit in a test tube then we gotta doubt its existence. That’s why something as basic as Consciousness disrupts the whole system. Rene Descartes tried to separate the differences, through a confused episode of God like authority in his declaration that the material real and the immaterial is … “not real” (AKA “The Cartesian split”). Just where he got the authority to establish a new rule like that is overlooked in favor of the convenience of the notion. As though truth were a democratic process.
His ego-driven assertion was devastating in medical parameters that medical might have permission to refer to the “Pancreatic case in 422,” without the inconvenience of human dignity to have to pronounce that person as “Ted, with severs cancer, who has a wife and three children.” Extreme materialism has never been kind to our human race. Besides devaluating people to developed, lucky apes, we become mere tissue and flesh, with value based upon what we may contribute to establish our measurable value. Take off the mask and see a cruel task master turning us into automatons.
“The emergence of consciousness, then, is a mystery, and one to which materialism fails to provide an answer.’
— Geoffrey Medell
“How can mere matter originate consciousness? How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness? Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the aftereffects of the Big Bang. So how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?”
— Colin McGinn (avowed atheist)
How does one explain the work of a keen reality active beyond our physical bodies? We do not detect it by our natural five senses, but that does not discount its reality. They may theorize, but every proposal is chained to preconceived notions of excuses instead of object truth-seeking.
J. P. Moreland admirably frames the issue,
“… they are no longer treating matter as atheists and naturalists treat matter—namely, as brute stuff that can be completely described by the laws of chemistry and physics. Now they’re attributing spooky, soulish, or mental potentials to matter. They’re saying that prior to this level of complexity, matter contained the potential for mind to emerge—and at the right moment, guess what happened? These potentials were activated and consciousness was sparked into existence. … That is no longer naturalism, … that’s panpsychism. … the view that matter is not just inert physical stuff, but that it also contains proto-mental states in it. Suddenly, they’ve abandoned a strict scientific view of matter and adopted a view that’s closer to theism than to atheism. Now they’re saying that the world began not just with matter, but with stuff that’s mental and physical at the same time. Yet they can’t explain where these pre-emergent mental properties came from in the first place. And this also makes it hard for them to argue against the emergence of God.”
— Lee Strobel interview in Case for a Creator
19) Which comes first, atheism or evolutionism? What a sticky question, yet the appeal of evolution cannot be an honest result of the simple observation of nature. The discrepancies and inconsistent logic pose quite an affront to authentic reason. Recall that Darwin wrote in a time of great unknowing. The 19th century still held primitive concepts about the world. People believed that rotting meat could produce maggots and Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” (published 1818) was very popular not just for a novel fiction, but that it actually held a plot line of real plausibility. 19th century science still had much to be desired.
Charles Darwin himself was merely reflecting the Deism of his grandfather, Erastus. Erastus was outspoken in his belief in a system of theology that viewed God as distant from his creation, alienated and not all that interested in what he started. It’s as though God packed mud together and started it spinning. That became earth and ever since God has stood to the side, mildly entertained by what he inaugurated.
20) Excuses for Explanation
Foundation principle — “Something came from Nothing” – is so illogical, ridiculous, that atheism is the only reason for its premise. Take atheism out of the picture and evolution totally collapses simply because it is unnecessary. It’s demises its purpose to devolve into a mere contrary conjecture.
Thus, evolutionists are left arguing in a vacuum, trying to negate the existence of God, with the religion of atheism being no more than a human invention of ultimate personal power. All supposed explanations are based on ever mounting assumptions. Try as they may the outcome always leads to excuses for wishful plans for the ego.
Bottom line, we are all seeking truth, especially about how we got here in the first place. That quest has always resided in the human psyche. The problem with Evolutionism arises when theistic resentment spoils the research. Make no mistake, these eager scientists have axes to grind with oppressive religious groups, but not necessarily God, himself.
The quest for human progress is legit but we need to ease the drama. Lucy is just a mythical drum Leaky kept beating to draw personal prestige and fame (and fortune!). Our real quest lies along the shores of “Adaptation,” which is a unique attribute of human resiliency. It does not have to be magical melodrama.
Eventually it all comes down to a question of faith. Stephen Hawking’s premise that we must not consider what happened before the Big Bang, setting such considerations out of bounds only confirms how narrow and restricted Evolutionism faith really proposes itself. They still have to face up the lost logic of our ultimate beginning of how nothing mated with nothing to produce something. That equates to 0 + 0 = 1. Although they preach about logic like it’s the gospel, their final rung leads them to serious logical blasphemy.
At least the Christian faith has an answer at that point so long ago, but it is unpopular and politically incorrect to deny our ego quests. We do not know. Not that we are dim-witted, but in fact we cannot know. But we believe in a being superior and beyond Hawking’s post Big Bang paradigm.
“In other words, all the immediate plausibility of the Myth has vanished. But it has vanished only because we have been thinking it will remain plausible to the imagination, and it is imagination which makes the Myth: it takes over from rational thought only what it finds convenient.”
C. S. Lewis, “Funeral of a Great Myth”
Our humanness is not the apex of a millennia of refinement. It is naturally fallible and short sighted. Our finite minds cannot possibly comprehend infinite mysteries. They are not false on that basis, the fault lies in our own feeble perceptions. The being just beyond our finite reasoning holds the missing pieces we could never comprehend. But he’s not some elderly gent sitting on the clouds with a harp and bountiful grapes. The divine entity requires higher conceptions that surpasses the plausibility of human imagination. He is the one who causes our hearts to yearn and desire the truth of our origins. Prohibiting the approach to God not only violates full intellectual pursuit by setting up preconceived scientific bigotry, it also prohibits finding the ultimate connection all the scientific effort is seeking the first place.