Everyone believes in something.
There is no such thing as a “purely objective scientist” or a “purely secular public figure”.
Everyone has a bias, a slant or a world-view and most everyone promotes that world view with guile and subterfuge rather than honestly stating their agenda.
I am a Christian.
I also believe in American Exceptionalism.
Unlike other religions (to include atheistic or pagan hedonism), Christianity affords its adherents a unique avenue towards real Truth: self denial and personal discipline.
The key to being a good Christian is, coincidentally, the key to having the clearest understanding of the world around you;
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My Sake will find it.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of Man is going to come in the Glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds!” ~ Matthew 16:24-27
Remember, your “cross” is not a pleasant thing.
By this definition, a Christian’s life is pain, challenge, trial and self control (conversely, those who say otherwise are demonic-inspired heretics). If you have the ability to crave something, to lust for something and deny it to yourself for whatever reason (usually because it’s unhealthy or immoral), you are a powerful person.
You are also hated and feared by all those who can not.
That is why the Apostle Paul says that those who willingly serve Christ have freed themselves from slavery…to their own nature.
How does this apply in the secular world?
Let’s look at the issue of abortion.
In abortion, we get some pretty twisted arguments from the pro-abortion crowd;
“It’s the woman’s body, she should do what she wants.”
”I think it’s wrong, but I don’t want to push my values on someone else.”
“When you carry the baby, then you can have an opinion.”
Clearly, when a woman carries another life, it’s not hers to dispose of as she sees fit, especially when abortion uses some of the most heinous techniques of killing known to man—and does so on the most vulnerable and innocent of life.
How can proponents of abortion sleep at night? —Because they don’t believe any of what they are saying. They have a hidden agenda that cancels out the medical fact that at 8 weeks babies have fingers, toes, brainwaves and a heartbeat and that premature babies are being saved at amazing ages now thanks to medical science.
They want sex without consequences.
Logic doesn’t matter.
Science doesn’t matter.
Morality doesn’t matter.
But there is an even more shocking example of world view agendas destroying debate: in explaining the origin of life.
Now more than ever before, Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis and it is “logic” and “science” that are killing it.
DNA: THE DIGITAL CODE
DNA is a digital, self-correcting code that, when changed by mutation, loses information. This loss of information is a detriment to the organism, not a benefit.
Bert Hubert is a computer programmer and a Darwinian who gave this perspective on DNA:
Holy Code: /* you are not expected to understand this */
Some code is sacred. We may not remember who wrote it, or why – we just know that it works. The guy who thought it up may have left the company already. Such code is not to be tinkered with.
DNA knows the concept of the “molecular clock”. Some parts of the genome are actively changing and some parts are sacrosanct. A good example of the latter are the Histone genes H3 and H4.
These genes are fundamental to the actual storage of the genome and are thus of paramount importance. Any failure in this code rapidly leads to a non-functioning organism.
So it is to be expected that this code isn’t tinkered with and that turns out the case. The H3 an H4 genes have a *zero* effective mutation rate in humans. But it goes far beyond that.
Bert has a section on “junk DNA” that modern analysis via genome mapping has already proved outdated and inaccurate. This via the Washington Post:
In all, at least 80 percent of the genome appears to be active at least sometime in our lives. Further research may reveal that virtually all of the DNA passed down from generation to generation has been kept for a reason.
“This concept of ‘junk DNA’ is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.
The corruption of DNA can be explained by “entropy” which I cover below but Christians have another take that explains the encoding behind entropy that we call “Original Sin”.
An excellent example of the importance of “information” or the loss of it in genetics, is the myriad of health problems suffered by purebred dogs. The K9’s great, great, great, great grand-daddy was an extremely healthy and robust animal but today’s dogs have suffered so much genetic manipulation by man that dog breeding has become an ethical dilemma (at least for those who have a problem with harming animals to make a buck).
The very premise of Darwinian Evolution is false; the idea that life arose from the simple to become complex. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems migrate from order to chaos. Nothing in nature contradicts this, save the “theory” of Evolution.
There is no such thing as a “simple, single-celled organism”.
To go from a “simple, single-celled organism” to the amazing complexity of the human body via random mutation would necessitate lots and lots and lots of time and even more evidence of mutations that didn’t make the grade. None of this is in the fossil record.
Instead, some Darwinians are saying the complete opposite (which adds even more stress to a crumbling hypothesis).
THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION
The Cambrian Explosion marks an astounding period in archeological history where a massive number of complex forms simply “appear” in the fossil record. It has confounded Darwinians since its discovery and so they take this overwhelming Intelligent Design evidence and simply count it as theirs.
Read this article excerpt from “Paleontology online” slowly and carefully, and marvel:
The transition between the Precambrian and the Cambrian period (about 550 million to 500 million years ago) records one of the most important patterns of fossils in all the geological record. Complex animals with a suite of shells, intricate body plans and associated movement traces appeared for the first time, suddenly and unambiguously, in sequences all over the world during this interval. This “Cambrian explosion” remains one of the most controversial areas of research in all of the history of life, and one of the most exciting. Palaeontological data like this is definitive in its support for evolutionary theory, the relative sequence of first appearances in the fossil record over the past several billion years ties very closely with what we would expect from evolutionary theory.
VIOLATES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Speaking of the “theory” of Evolution, did you know that evolution does not even qualify for the term?
According to the scientific method Darwinian Evolution is the equivalent of a kindergarten fantasy or B-grade SciFi film; the amount of willing suspension of disbelief required to believe it is unbelievable.
The introduction to the Wikipedia entry on Scientific Method is illustrative:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Macro evolution (the evolution of one species into another) is none of these things: it isn’t testable, repeatable or observable. You can not isolate the variables and no one has been able to replicate the process.
Variation within a species (“micro evolution”) is as verifiable as…pollution. The archetype example of micro evolution was the coloration changes observed in the peppered moths of the English countryside during the Industrial Revolution. As the colors of the normally-white birch trees changed from coal-fire soot, so did those of the peppered moths that used them for concealment. Unfortunately for Darwinians, that was the extent of the changes (as opposed to, say, the moths morphing into velociraptors who, in turn, ate the birds that were preying on them).
To this day, scientists are completely baffled by the development of life in the womb. How two zygotes come together to form a cell which then starts dividing to become a myriad of organs, tissues and processes remains a mystery.
Reverse engineering is a fine art. The Russian military is founded on it.
However, just like looking back on the fossil record and pretending to see complete transitions in species when only similar, whole forms exist, Darwinians have a problem reverse-engineering complex systems as well.
The most amazing part of this critique is how easy it is to explain. As biochemistry professor (and originator of this damning challenge to Darwin) Dr. Michael J. Behe puts it—a mousetrap is composed of 5 basic parts; a hammer, a spring, a catch, a platform and a holding bar. If one of those parts is missing in the “development” of that mousetrap, you don’t catch 1/5 fewer mice, you catch none because the system ceases to function. There are organs within a complex living being that can not be simplified in their imagined development because, if they were, that being would cease to function.
Rarely will I cite an Islamic apologist as a source but Turkey’s Adnan Oktar has posted this accurate assessment of the miraculous system we take for granted as “simple”: avian feathers. It is only via modern examination techniques that these complexities have been revealed:
…bird feathers have such a complex structure that the phenomenon can never be accounted for by evolutionary processes. As we all know, there is a shaft that runs up the center of the feather. Attached to the shaft are the vanes. The vane is made up of small thread-like strands, called barbs. These barbs, of different lengths and rigidity, are what give the bird its aerodynamic nature. But what is even more interesting is that each barb has thousands of even smaller strands attached to them called barbules. The barbules are connected to barbicels, with tiny microscopic hooks, called hamuli. Each strand is hooked to an opposing strand, much like the hooks of a zipper.
Just one crane feather has about 650 barbs on each of side of the shaft. About 600 barbules branch off the barbs. Each one of these barbules are locked together with 390 hooklets. The hooks latch together as do the teeth on both sides of a zip. If the hooklets come apart for any reason, the bird can easily restore the feathers to their original form by either shaking itself or by straightening its feathers out with its beak.
This “adaptation” is so amazing, it also adds a seal against moisture for water fowl.
Speaking of which, I remember as a kid being astounded by documentaries that use the phrase “brilliant adaptation” when describing phenomena such as these. It sounds just as stupid now as it did then.
The examples of such “brilliant adaptations” are far too many and diverse to list here but I will pull up one more for illustration.
The polar bear is a favorite of the global warming alarmists because they paint the animal as a cute, cuddly prop for their subterfuge. However, the Ursus maritimus is considered to be the largest land predator extant on the planet today and given its austere environment that, alone, can easily be construed as “miraculous”.
Even more amazing is that there is a unique quality to a polar bear’s pelt and skin. The polar bear has follicles that aren’t “white” but clear and the skin of a polar bear is, in fact, black. Simple physics will immediately cause you to be amazed and see that an animal appears to have fur that makes it blend with its environment yet serves the amazing purpose of helping to keep a complex mammal warm in a frigid ecosystem.
This seems to be so efficient that it’s not uncommon to see a polar bear “sunning” itself on the ice.
Not surprisingly, such assumptions have a host of detractors who, apparently, have been to the same school of uncritical thought as most Darwinians.
Here is one such, “debunking” example:
“And older theories are being challenged. It was believed that the bear’s outer hairs were hollow, in order to transmit light to its black skin, a form of solar heating, but Jane [Waterman]’s analysis of the hair exploded that theory…’ It did not transmit light and if you think about it, it really doesn’t make any sense to have a system where you use light to warm yourself up if its minus forty degrees Celsius and twenty-four hour darkness, it doesn’t do you any good.’”
What “Jane Waterman” fails to take into account is that a polar bear is a mammal, not a reptile. Systems that are symbiotic with their environment don’t depend on them, they are simply aided by them. My first clue as to the cluelessness of such an “expert” was the phrase “if you think about it”. “Thinking about it” is also not found in the Scientific Method nor do scientists “explode” theories.
But people with agendas think they do.
AGAINST THE ODDS
The number of “coincidences” and parameters that have come together to support life on planet Earth are so varied and unique that it has many sky-watchers getting rather depressed.
* unitary solar system rather than two suns
* perfect distance of the Earth from the Sun
* perfect orbit of the Earth (producing delicate season changes)
* 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth
* the orbit of the solar system within the galaxy is also unique and important to life
* stability of the solar system
* composition of the atmosphere
* protection from excessive radiation by the Van Allen belt
* ratio of water to land
* unusual size of only one moon in the perfect orbit
* the Earth’s unusually slow rotation speed
* relatively calm tectonic activity
* the importance of the size and location of the other bodies in our solar system
The complete list is far more comprehensive than this but these are just a few starters for any budding scientists…real scientists, that is.
If this disappoints any of my Trekkie readers, never fear. There will be an “alien disclosure” in our near future. I’m afraid, however, it will be more “V” than “Star Trek”.
Despite all of its imperfections, Darwinian Evolution has been extremely helpful to a special class of people: mass murderers and multi-millionaires.
From Adolf Hitler to robber barons like Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan to the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger (born and raised Roman Catholic)through Columbine killer Eric Harris, applying Darwinian evolution to human beings has been a boon.
FRAUD AND DECEIT
As time wore on, Darwinians began to get restless waiting for “missing links” to fall into place. So, being the good scientists that they were, they made them up (or eagerly drew unfounded conclusions based upon their presuppositions).
* Piltdown Man: the jawbone of an orangutan with the skull of a human created this embarrassing hoax—and it was pulled off by a Jesuit priest!
* Nebraska Man: an entire species of pre-man based upon a single tooth…not. This embarrassment was part of the revenge scheme that became the “Scopes Monkey Trial” I discuss below.
* Java Man: Three teeth, a skull cap and a femur strewn across a large area were enough for Dutchman Eugene Dubois to claim “success!” in 1891. As this Darwinian site admits, Dubois was the perfect evolutionary “scientist”; he started with his conclusion then went looking for anything that appeared to shore it up: a young Dutch military doctor, who came to Java in 1887 with the sole purpose of finding the “missing link” between humans and apes.
* Ocre Man: the “oldest man in Europe” turns out to be the fragment of a donkey skull. Darwinians do so love making whole species out of a little piece of bone here and there. Sometimes just “there”.
* Bone Crunching Debunks “First Monkey” Ida Fossil Hype, Wired
* Harvard Psychology Professor “Faked Data And Fudged Results In Monkey Experiments”, UK Mail
* Researchers: “Lucy” Is Not Direct Ancestor Of Humans, Jerusalem Post
* Scientists Are Accused Of Distorting Theory Of Human Evolution By Misdating Bones, The UK Observer
IF ALL ELSE FAILS, — USETHE IRON FIST
I’m just a layman. I’m not an expert. Yet I think I’ve done a fair job of showing that Darwinian Evolution could stand some closer investigation…perhaps some fair debate, don’t you agree?
The “science” and “education” establishments most assuredly do not.
When the California Science Center learned that an upcoming presentation would give equal time to Evolution and Intelligent Design, the event was immediately cancelled, forcing the presenters to sue.
Astrophysicist and assistant professor of Astronomy Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was one of the top names in his field. When Iowa State University found out that he was a proponent of Intelligent Design they summarily fired him. When Ball State gave him a job, it was “highly controversial”. Recall that there are university “professors” that took part in open sedition and were complicit in multiple counts of murder or called the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmanns”.
At NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, System Administrator David Coppedge had tenure and respect. Evolution News reported that Coppedge was responsible for—
200 Unix workstations, several high-capacity data storage units, networking equipment, and other specialized computing equipment across America and Europe. He has a wide breadth of knowledge about technical aspects of Cassini’s computers and networks and was heavily involved in all the mission operations. Coppedge has been a faithful and highly regarded JPL employee for many years, has led tours of the lab and has served as an outreach speaker presenting the Cassini findings to civic and astronomy clubs and school groups.
Now, though, this exemplary employee has been demoted. Why? Did he do something to jeopardize the mission? No. Was he guilty of incompetence? No. Was he lazy or just lackadaisical in his work? No. David Coppedge’s sin was a thought crime, the mere willingness to challenge the ruling authority of Darwinian evolution. In conversation he asked colleagues if they’d be interested in watching a documentary that dealt with evolution and intelligent design. For this he was harassed and discriminated against.
In 2008 the Florida Board of Education attempted to qualify Evolution as just a “theory” (as I’ve shown, it’s not even that). There was immediate outrage amongst the Darwinian faithful.
“Creationism” is Intelligent Design that says the “Designer” is the God of the Bible. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court decided that lawyers knew best what should be in textbooks and “Creationism” had no business standing on the same pedestal as Darwinian Evolution. This decision was to be enforced at all costs, as high school biology teacher Larry Booher found out.
2008 was a banner year for the Druids of Darwin as it was also that year that Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Royal Society was excommunicated for his belief in Creationism.
But perhaps the best and most recent example of scientific professionalism on par with shutting your eyes, covering your ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!” was the decision by Popular Science to forbid comments on its online site because too much information was getting out that questioned both “global warming” and Darwinian Evolution.
THE DRUIDS OF DARWIN
In 1960, Hollywood glamorized the 1925 court case known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in a movie called “Inherit the Wind”. If you ever needed outrageous characterizations of calm, open-minded, “science”-loving Darwinians verses crazed, closed-minded, superstitions “Christians”, just watch that movie.
The reality, of course, is quite different even for the trial which was chosen as a propaganda tool of the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Menton is a PhD in cellular biology who now works for the Creationist organization “Answers in Genesis”. He was interviewed by pastor Donn Chapman of Cornerstone Ministries and, although this is not a neutral setting, it gives important background you won’t normally hear regarding the “Scopes Monkey Trial”.
I bring this up because it’s the first thing that Darwinians and even common folk think of when the envision Christians questioning Evolution.
But as I’ve shown here, it is actually the reverse that is true.