BUT DOESN'T SCIENCE DISPROVE THE BIBLE?
Faith gains confidence if evolution is doubtable.
A Quick Review of the Theory of Evolution:
1.
Over the course of billions of years, all living things that we see today evolved small step by small step from an original one-celled organism.
2.
This happened as small, random genetic changes (or genetic mutations) occurred by chance in the DNA of a living organism.
So, this is the chance aspect of evolution.
3.
Many genetic mutations are not helpful, but some genetic mutations are helpful. Helpful genetic mutations give the living organism new physical features that help it survive and reproduce better than the other organisms within their Species that did not have these genetic changes.
What determines which organisms will survive and reproduce, and which will not?
4.
Intense competition in the natural environment between all living things is what determines which living things will survive and reproduce and which will not.
This competition is called Natural Selection by Evolutionists.
As Evolutionists explain it, Natural Selection actually "selects" nothing. It is simply a name for all the challenges in the environment that put pressure on all living things to try to survive.
It is what results in "the survival of the fittest." It is what results in the more-fit-for-survival surviving and the less-fit-for-survival dying out.
So, this is not a chance process. But it is a natural process.
By surviving the environmental competition, organisms with genetic mutations helpful for survival pass those favorable genes on to their offspring.
What are some important characteristics of Natural Selection?
• Natural Selection has no feelings and makes no moral choices:
So, it is a totally impersonal process with no preference for which organisms survive and which do not.
QUOTE
• It has no conscious end-goal:
For example, it does not consciously seek the advancement in complexity of all living species. It is not consciously seeking to evolve all living things toward some higher level. It just happened. So, it never planned to turn a one-celled organism into a human being.
• It is simply the gatekeeper to survival.
Illustration:
• Natural Selection is like a sieve – some organisms can pass through it (and survive) and some cannot.
• Natural Selection is like a 300 pound stone over the mouth of a well in the middle of the desert. If you can lift the stone, you can drink and live. If you cannot lift the stone to drink, you die.
• Natural Selection is like a competition between 2 squirrels for 1 nut:
Only one can eat it and live.
Which one will survive this competition?
It is helpful genetic mutations resulting in helpful, new physical characteristics that make one living thing more likely to survive than another, and more likely to reproduce and pass those genetic mutations on to its offspring.
It survives because it is the "fittest" for the competition to survive. It has the most physical characteristics genetic mutations that
5.
Those favorable changes accumulate in a Species until there are so many changes that the Species becomes a new Species. This happened over billions of years until a Species changed into a new Genus, which eventually changed into a new Family, which changed into a new ?????????????
So this competition for survival (or environmental competition, or Natural Selection) was won by living organisms that experienced genetic mutations. When enough genetic mutations accumulated in a Species, that Species evolved into a new Species.
Important Issue:
But if Natural Selection (or environmental competition) is impersonal and has no conscious sense of purpose or direction, how did all living things evolve into more and more complex beings? How could one-celled organisms eventually evolve into human beings based on this undirected process?
The environmental pressure of Natural Selection is nothing more than a pressure to survive or die. Living things that have the greatest number of favorable genetic changes naturally survive. Multiple genetic changes eventually result in the development of a new Species – and so on.
Greater survivability generally (though not always) comes to those with greater complexity, strength, intelligence, etc. So, though totally unplanned, living things generally evolved in a more advanced direction. Environmental competition is generally won by more advanced living things.
A Major Question Regarding Natural Selection:
Is it a robust enough process to have created all the living things that exist on the earth?
Since Natural Selection is totally unplanned and undirected, and is nothing more than environmental competition, or a competition to survive, is it a strong enough force to cause the evolution of all living things from an original one-celled organism?
It seems robust within individual Species.
It is commonly observed within individual Species – especially of domesticated animals and cultivated crops.
It seems significantly weaker from Species to Species.
One Species evolving into another Species is far less commonly observed .
It seems weaker and weaker as it goes up the taxonomic ladder.
Much of the confidence in evolution (particularly Macro-Evolution) is based on 4 assumptions:
1. Genetic similarities between Species = evolution from the same ancestors.
2. Similar physical characteristics between Species = evolution from the same ancestors.
3. If evolution happens on the Species level, we can assume that it also happened on the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order levels.
4. There is no other strictly materialistic hypothesis for explaining the variety of living things that we see today, so evolution must be correct.
Why does the evidence for evolution by Natural Selection seem weaker as you go up the taxonomic ladder?
• "Notorious gaps" in the fossil record leave the first 3 assumptions open to question.
• Evolution (specifically Macro-Evolution) is not the only explanation for genetic similarities and similar physical characteristics between Species.
Creator God designing and creating all living things is an explanation that fits well with the evidence.
This takes faith to believe.
Why else is it reasonable to doubt how robust Natural Selection is?
Behe!
The greater the number of assumptions in a theory, the greater the faith required to believe it.
Assumptions, by their very nature, are unproven.
That is why it takes faith to believe Macro-Evolution.
Evolutionists are not eager to investigate the difference between Micro-Evolution (small-scale evolution) and Macro-Evolution (large-scale evolution.
They prefer to assume that they are the same thing.
A Quick Definition of Materialism & Materialistic Science.
So the major factors are Time + Chance.
is not a scientifically airtight theory, there is logical room for other reasonable alternatives.
science conveys a materialistic view of the world that denies the existence of any reality outside the material, physical world
What this discussion is about:
Whether there is reasonable cause to doubt the truth of evolution.
Whether there are important questions that science, evolution and materialism cannot adequately explain.
Science also requires "faith."
Science "believes" certain things that are unprovable.
What this section is not about:
Not a discussion of scientific details –
This section will not discuss the scientific details for and against evolution. These details have been discussed in many other places.
Not an effort to scientifically prove or disprove anything –
This is not an effort to disprove evolution. This is not an effort to prove that the universe was made by a Designer. These efforts have been made by many before.
A SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAGE:
1. Not to Prove or Disprove Anything Scientifically.
There are already many books, articles and web sites that debate the truth or falsehood of scientific ideas –
like evolution or the origin of the universe, for example.
They do this by going into the detailed scientific data –
then, based on the data, they draw conclusions about how the universe or life began.
But the purpose of this page is to look at the bigger picture – and ...
2. To Show That Science Does Not Know Everything.
Science has Limits – of Knowledge, of Time, of Space, of Ability.
• New facts continually come up that baffle scientists.
• There are still many basic things that science has not discovered.
• Scientists cannot go back in time to conclusively investigate the beginning of all things.
• Scientists are physically incapable of going to many places that they want to investigate.
• Scientists don't have the technology or expertise to investigate certain very complex things.
• The scientific field is limited in the areas it can reasonably investigate –
It is over its head in areas that are non-material, like the psychological or spiritual.
3. To Show that Having Faith is Reasonable and Unavoidable.
• Scientific knowledge is limited, and the scope of science is limited –
so there is vast room for humans to have beliefs that go beyond the reach of science.
• Even atheistic scientists believe in certain things:
They have their own kind of faith that goes outside and beyond the scope of science.
They have their own personal prejudices and biases –
which can cause them to interpret scientific "facts" so as to fit their preferred beliefs.
• So, why isn't it reasonable and fair for other people to have faith, also?
It is Very Reasonable to Doubt Certain Scientific Theories.
• Scientists are always changing and adjusting what they think is true.
As they learn new pieces of information their theories change.
This is not a criticism of science –
it is just part of the scientific process –
it is simply what science is like –
it is, in fact, how science should operate.
But, this is also why it is reasonable to doubt what science says.
• What scientists claim is true today, may not be true tomorrow!
• Sometimes scientists make big mistakes in their calculations or interpretations of data.
Basic Conclusion: Don't Let Your Faith Be Intimidated by Science.
It is okay to doubt science!
You are under no obligation to believe everything that scientists tell you.
There are many things that science cannot explain.
It is perfectly reasonable for you to hold onto your faith in God and in God's Word (the Bible).
4. Not to Belittle Science.
After all, science has:
Put a man on the moon.
Cured many diseases.
Dramatically increased food production.
Made modern technology possible.
Made life more enjoyable.
But science cannot replaced God, no matter how some scientists may try!
And this page points out why science is incapable of doing so:
Because science is limited!
But God is without limit!
For Voltaire and similar thinkers, Newton's triumph in mechanics proved that science would eventually explain everything, including human actions, in terms of rigid cause-and-effect (deterministic) laws: “It would be very singular,” Voltaire wrote, “that all nature, all the planets, should obey eternal laws, and that there should be a little animal, five feet high, who in contempt of these laws, could act as he pleased, solely according to his caprice.”
Armed with the ironclad credibility of the new science, these writers began to attack traditional religion. Their skepticism contributed to a decline in religious belief in industrial societies that has continued steadily to the present day and is especially true in Europe. In the United States, the general populace remains almost universally religious, but scientists express lower rates of religious belief in polls, with physicists—Newton's intellectual heirs—being the most nonreligious group (only about 20% of physicists believed in God as of 1998). This is ironic, given that Newton himself was a devout Christian.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/physics-newtonian-physics
Encyclopedia.com
Physics: Newtonian Physics
Scientific Thought: In Context
COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale
Physics: Newtonian Physics
WHERE WERE SCIENTISTS WHEN GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE?
EVEN SCIENTISTS HAVE FAITH!
1. Science has limits to what it can adequately investigate –
• It cannot see what happens after death:
One of the most important questions about life is: What happens after it ends?
Science has nothing conclusive to say about this.
• It cannot go back to the beginning of time:
Science cannot literally go back in time to the beginnings of the universe and of life on earth.
So there are important facts that science simply does not know.
And there are claims that scientists believe to be true, but cannot conclusively prove.
2. So scientists also express beliefs, not just scientific fact.
So science unavoidably leaves the "arena of proven fact" and enters the "arena of belief" when it makes dogmatic claims about some of the fundamental questions concerning life and the universe, even though it lacks conclusive evidence to do so.
This is, of course, different from proposing a hypothesis and then testing it against verifiable evidence.
Believing something you cannot conclusively prove requires faith.
(These beliefs are often secular in nature – not necessarily spiritual or religious in nature).
That scientists operate in the arena of beliefs (not just facts) is illustrated by the numerous times, even down to today, when scientists have made dogmatic claims about the nature of life and the universe, only to have to change their claims when new facts are discovered.
Believing something that later proves to be untrue, shows that you were not operating on fact but on faith.
3. Three ways scientists blend their scientific work and personal beliefs about God:
• Consciously Rejecting God:
Some scientists deny the existence of God – even attempting to disprove God's existence through scientific means.
Many even define "science" in a way that automatically rejects any reference to or evidence of the supernatural.
They claim that Science is True, but faith in God or spiritual things is naive and often false.
This is a statement of faith.
To claim that only Science can answer the question of how the universe began and how life began is a statement of faith –
it is a statement unproven by Science.
They claim to be totally "scientific," objective, and only guided by data; but their underlying belief in God's non-existence can prejudice their conclusions – even making them hostile to the idea of God.
How else do scientists who do not believe in God have faith?
They have faith that science has disproven the existence of God.
They have faith that science will eventually be able to explain everything about life and the universe without any reliance on the existence of God.
This is a belief on their part, not a proven fact.
• Maintaining Neutrality About the Question of God's Existence:
Another scientific approach is to consciously attempt to remain neutral about the existence of God while doing scientific work.
These scientists neither assume God's existence nor God's non-existence as they do their research, but only relying on natural evidence when seeking to understand the workings of life and the universe.
They (attempt to) keep their personal belief or non-belief in God out of the scientific process.
Some scientists who take this approach do believe in God.
Convinced that God usually works in the universe through orderly, natural processes, some view this "objective" approach to scientific research as a way of actually discovering what God has done.
• Believing in God:
Another approach of scientists who believe in God is to investigate the amazing order and design in the universe with the firm conviction that life and the universe are actually best understood and explained as the work of an Intelligent Designer.
In fact, some are convinced that denying the existence of God actually leads to false scientific theories about life and the universe.
The basic concept in Point 3 is indebted to the article: Naturalism (Philosophy), New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Naturalism_(Philosophy)
4. A fair number of American scientists do believe in God or a higher power:
Percentage who believe in:
God 33%
A universal spirit 18%
or higher power
Neither 41%
Percentage of 18- to 34-year-old scientists who believe in:
God 42%
A universal spirit 24%
or higher power
Neither 32%
Pew Research Center poll, May-June 2009
5. Some scientists reject belief in God for unscientific, personal reasons.
On just the second or third page of the Bible it says:
The Lord God commanded the man ...
Genesis 2:16
Creator God obviously has the right to give orders to those he has created.
Since humans have been created by God, we are obligated to obey him.
There are many people who do not want to obey God.
They want to live their own lives in whatever way they please.
So the existence of God is a big, personal problem for them.
If God did not exist, they could do whatever they wanted –
they would be free of God's Laws.
So they are looking for "scientific" reasons to prove that God does not exist.
So how they interpret scientific data is not always objective.
They have a vested interest in science "proving" that the Bible is wrong and God does not exist.
So they, too, have belief or faith.
It is a belief in a universe that exists without the existence of God.
It is a secular faith.
Aldous/Julian Huxley quote
6. So don't feel that having faith is intellectually inferior!
Having faith in God is not intellectually inferior to scientific beliefs that reject God.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
If scientists can have personal belief or faith (whether an atheistic belief or a belief in God) that at times even influences their "scientific" conclusions, is it unreasonable for you to have faith?
SCIENTISTS MAKE MANY MISTAKES – BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED – SO DON'T BE INTIMIDATED BY SCIENCE.
1. Human knowledge has severe limits – so scientists (and we) should be humble.
The Lord answered Job out of the storm. He said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? ...Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!"
Job 38:1-5, 21
He [God] suspends the earth over nothing.
Job 26:7
Were you there when it happened?
It is a simple fact: No scientist was there to see the beginning!
And that can lead to many mistakes.
Scientists can only view, investigate and theorize about the results that they see thousands, millions, even billions of years after the actual event.
So there are many things that science does not know.
2. Not being there when it happened can lead to significant errors.
Illustration #1: Moon Dust.
On July 20, 1969, astronauts flying on the Apollo 11 became the first men to step on the surface of the moon. They made footprints in moon dust which was about 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) deep.
But before the launch of Apollo 11, Thomas Gold, a scientist working for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) had been very concerned about the possibility of a far deeper layer of dust on the moon's surface.
He "warned NASA that the dust might be so deep that the lunar module and the astronauts themselves could sink irretrievably into it."
One Giant Leap by Charles Fishman, Simon & Schuster
The astronauts themselves were concerned about this possibility. So when the first astronaut stepped onto the moon's surface, he hung onto the ladder of the lunar module for support.
We were not sure if it “would be like quicksand, literally sucking a person down into a quagmire of dust,” wrote one of the astronauts.
Magnificent Desolation by Buzz Aldrin with Ken Abraham, Crown/Archetype.
Fortunately, Thomas Gold's concern proved to be untrue. Yet, based on scientific evidence, he had thought (and the astronauts had believed) that there was a genuine possibility of great danger.
But, because they were not there when the dust actually accumulated, they were wrong!
So what's the point?
The point of this illustration is not that scientists made a mistake. Mistaken hypotheses or theories are a normal part of the scientific process, so history is filled with them. In fact, it is the job of science to test various hypotheses and theories and to keep rejecting the false ones until it finds the correct one.
Science often gets things wrong before it gets them right!
The question being asked here is far more subtle and far more serious:
When do scientists move from the realm of science into the realm of faith?
This happens when scientists believe and hold onto a theory as though it were fact, even when it cannot be fully verified.
Fortunately, the depth of the moon dust could be verified, but there are very important theories that have never been conclusively verified – and probably will never be verified. When scientists hold onto something not fully verified – when they become emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually invested in something not fully verified – they have moved from the realm of science into the realm of faith.
This happens when:
1. A hypothesis or theory has not, or cannot, be fully verified, but ...
2. Scientists believe it and teach it as thought it is fully verified.
It also happens when scientists are biased, want a certain theory to be true for personal reasons, and therefore preach it as though it were fully verified.
Julian Huxley
It was possible for the astronauts to actually go to the moon and measure the depth of the moon dust. So everyone could adjust their conclusions accordingly.
Unfortunately, scientists cannot go back thousands, millions, even billions of years in time. They cannot actually check to see if their assumptions about life's origins or the origins of the universe are actually true or not.
The origins of the universe and of life are, from a scientific perspective, staggeringly complex questions – far more complex than moon dust.
Think how easy it is to make a series of false assumptions that add up to a completely wrong conclusion.
So remember the lesson of simple moon dust!
It is wise to be humble.
Illustration #2: Another Moon Story.
There would be no erosion on the moon's surface – we thought.
On the earth, erosion of soil, rocks, and mountains is caused by water and wind.
But there is no atmosphere on the moon, so there is no water or wind. So, no erosion – we thought.
As a result, we expected the mountains, hills, and rocks on the moon to be rough and jagged.
Like in this picture:
This was very logical, right? Even though it wasn't conclusively provable at the time, the available evidence made it seem proven: The moon's surface was rough and jagged.
Unfortunately, scientists weren't on the moon when it happened, so they were wrong. The mountains, hills, and many rocks on the moon were smooth!
It actually looked like this picture:
We didn't know to factor in the erosive effect of space dust. These very small to larger particles from outer space bombarded the moon's surface at tremendous speeds – like sandpaper that smoothed away the jagged edges. As a result, what originally seemed scientifically "proven" turned out to be in error. But we didn't know this until we arrived on the moon and saw it with our own eyes..
The purpose, here, is not to belittle scientists: They put a man on the moon! The purpose is to simply show how easy it is to make a mistake – even with our closest neighbor in space.
When scientists miscalculate about something that happened thousands or millions of years ago (like erosion on the moon) they can get the "truth" completely backward. Fortunately, in the case of the moon, the errors did not have serious consequences. Better yet, astronauts could actually go to the moon and see if the assumptions were true or not. In this case they weren't.
Imagine the potential for mistakes when scientists hypothesize about the far reaches of our universe.
If they didn't know what was happening right under their noses on the surface of our next door neighbor in space (where they could actually observe the surface with telescopes) ...
(The question hardly needs to be asked:
How can they know what happened 15 billion years ago in the far reaches of our universe?)
Unfortunately, it is impossible to go back in time and see the origins of life and of our universe. Scientists can't go back and see what actually happened before the Big Bang or go back to see life being formed on the earth. They can only look at the results thousands, or millions, or billions of years later. So we should be very humble about our assumptions. And we should be honest that, whether we are a Materialistic Scientist or a believer in Creator God, there is a lot that we don't know, and therefore a lot that we take on faith.
God's question is very fair to ask: Where were you when the universe began? Where were you when life began?
Or more simply: Where were you when moon dust was gathering on the surface of the moon?
We weren't there, so we should be very humble.
Remember the lesson of simple moon dust.
3. Little Mistakes Add Up!
A little mistake about moon dust...
A little mistake about erosion on the moon...
A little mistake about this...
A little mistake about that...
The little mistakes start to add up. And the more complex the issue, the more the mistakes can add up.
Think about how complex the beginning of the universe is.
Think about how complex the beginning of life is.
As they theorize about these complex matters, think about how many mistaken assumptions scientists can make – and never realize it, because they can't go back into time and check with their own eyes.
Again, the point is not to criticize scientists –
for in their proper sphere they do amazing work.
As the Bible says:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Proverbs 25:2
The greater person creates and conceals.
Consider all the secrets in the universe!
The lesser person searches – and sometimes finds.
And, of course, they deserve credit for that.
So God's question is very simple, logical, and powerful:
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Job 38:4
The answer requires great humility.
4. If you start in the wrong spot, you end up in the wrong spot.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
The fool has said in his heart: There is no God.
Figure 1 is an artist's rendition of how the scene in the lunar highlands photographed by the astronauts of Apollo 17 was originally expected to look. Figure 2 is how it actually looked. The boulder is well rounded, as are the mountains and the crater edges. Without weather, what could account for such profound erosion?
- page 25 -
.
Figure 1: Artist's rendition of how Apollo 13 site in lunar highlands should have appeared according to best information available before actual pictures from the surface were available. With no atmosphere, and hence no weather to erode them, all rocks, craters, and lava formations would remain unaltered indefinitely.
Figure 2: Artist's drawing from Apollo 13 photograph of scene in figure 1. Note that all exposed surfaces have been worn and rounded by erosion. Exposed surfaces of the boulder in the foreground have a substantial cover of dirt.
- page 26 -
Figure 3: NASA moon rock 14310. This rock was found partially buried on the moon's surface where it had lain since being broken off a larger rock. The surfaces that were buried are angular and unmarked. The exposed surface, in contrast, is covered with many small pits that were made by small space dust particles striking at speeds up to 10 kilometers per second (11,000 miles per hour). This slow process, which has rounded the exposed surface, accounts for nearly all lunar erosion. The rock is about 19 centimeters (71/2 inches) wide.
Examination of moon rocks (fig. 3) provides the answer. The rock surfaces that were buried are sharp and angular, as expected, but all exposed surfaces are rounded off and severely pitted. The rock obviously has been struck by many small, high velocity objects. We know now that these objects are micro meteoroids, interplanetary dust grains averaging between 10-8 and 10-14 grams each. Ninety-five percent of these particles hit the surface at speeds over 10 kilometers per second (about 11,000 miles per hour), producing impact craters ranging from 1 micrometer to 1 millimeter (1/25,000 to 1/25 inch) in diameter.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/3/space-dust-moons-surface-age-cosmos
Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos
HideCreation Evolution Journal
Title:
Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos
Author(s):
Frank T. Awbrey
Volume:
4
Number:
3
Quarter:
Summer
Page(s):
21–29
Year:
1983
Scientists Who Deny God's Existence Base Certain Conclusions on Their Faith!
Of course, those who believe that Creator God made everything have faith:
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Hebrews 11:3
But this faith is not based on nothing:
It is based on everything that God is, as explained in the Bible.
It is also based on God's verifiable actions throughout human history.
It is also based on the amazing beauty and design of the universe.
But we are not the only ones who have faith.
Materialistic Scientists also have a lot of faith!
But this is unavoidable –
Because there are important things that Science neither knows nor is likely to know.
Science can, indeed, tell us many facts about the physical universe and living things.
But there are many things that it does not know yet.
And there are many areas that it is actually incapable of investigating, because it has no way to do so.
So there are crucial explanations about our universe that science can only speculate about and take on faith.
What are some of those questions that science answers based on faith?
Question: What existed before the Big Bang?
Many scientists believe that the matter in the universe is eternal – or that, before the Big Bang, matter somehow just appeared.
There is no proof that matter is eternal. It is a belief.
But if matter is not eternal, science has no explanation for how all the matter in the universe got there before the Big Bang.
It is obvious that someone or something has to be eternal.
To say that the matter that makes up the universe just appeared by chance, or just appeared "naturally" from nothing, is a statement of faith – not science.
Is believing that Creator God made everything less reasonable than that?
Question: What about the obvious gaps in the evolutionary chain?
Evolutionary scientists believe that what appear to be the missing links between species in the evolutionary chain either have already been or will eventually be filled in.
There are many intermediate steps in the evolutionary process for which we have no fossil record.
Evolutionary scientists believe that these intermediate steps did in fact exist.
But there is no concrete proof that many of them actually did exist.
Example: How did whales evolve?
There are XX major evolutionary steps that had to be crossed for a whale to evolve from (what is though to be) its last assumed ancestor xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
The xxxxxxxxx is a land animal! (???)
In other words, there are at least XX major missing links in the fossil record between xxxxxxxxxx and a whale. That is a lot of missing evidence!
So it takes faith to believe that the missing evidence is really there.
Observation: The universe operates according to very orderly and predictable scientific Natural Laws – without which science, itself, is impossible!
Everyday, scientists rely on these Natural Laws with a deep, unconscious faith that these laws will not fail.
Can they explain how these complex, uncountable number of laws got here in the first place?
Question: What about the amazing design that we see throughout the universe and in all living things?
Though our world looks intricately designed, scientists who deny God's existence believe that there is no evidence that it was designed, but that it actually came about by an undirected process over an exceedingly long time frame.
That is a statement of belief.
They believe that unplanned, undirected processes (the Big Bang and Evolution) could actually result in an astoundingly ordered universe with unimaginably complex life forms.
They have enough faith to believe that.
How about you? Do you have enough faith to believe that?
Question: If we discover what happened or how something happened, does that eliminate the need to ask why something happened or who did it?
Scientists who deny God's existence believe that discovering and understanding the technical details of what happened and how it happened (which is the job of science) eliminates the necessity of answering the question of why it happened or the question of who did it (which is in large part beyond science's ability).
Science's basic job is to discover and explain what happens in our universe and the technical process of how it happens?
But, when science discovers or understands a chemical or genetic process for how something happens in our world, it has absolutely no impact on Creator God's existence!
To claim that knowing how something happened eliminates the question of who caused it to happen, is a statement of belief – not science.
Illustration: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling
If we know in detail the technical process that Michelangelo used to apply plaster and paint to the Sistine Chapel ceiling, does that diminish in any way the fact that it was Michelangelo, himself, who created that amazing work of art?
Illustration:
If you were an explorer going through the Amazon rain forest, and you chanced upon an ancient, uninhabited city hidden under centuries of vegetation, what would be your first question?
Would it not be: Who built it?
Wouldn't that, also, be one of the first questions asked by anthropologists?
Why is it that discussions about the origin of the universe and the origin of life are the only time we are not allowed to ask the question: Who did it?
And why are these the only situations where we are told that there is no "who" in the story?
Question: How can Materialistic Science explain the existence of non-material things like aesthetics, art, music, architecture, love, the spiritual, the psychological?
Materialistic Science believes that these are just the results of materialistic processes within us – for example, just chemical reactions in our minds and bodies.
Or it just believes that someday, somehow it will be able to come up with a suitable explanation for how these non-material things came about.
• Materialistic Science is incapable of adequately explaining the existence of these things in life that we find the most meaningful –
this is one of its enormous limitations.
• And it cannot adequately answer this fundamental question:
How can what is only material result in what is immaterial?
Question: What about all the questions that science cannot answer?
Materialistic Science believes that science can answer every question about life and the physical universe (if given enough time).
Think of all the things that science has no answer to!
Question: Do scientists only look at the facts?
Materialistic Science believes that it, alone, looks only at the facts and is objective in its viewpoint!
But scientists are only human and have their own perspectives, preferences and biases.
Aldous Huxley
Question: Were scientists there before the Big Bang? Were they there when life was first created?
As humans, we should be very humble about what we claim to know about things that are far beyond our reach or knowledge.
WHY DOES IT TAKE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN MATERIALISTIC SCIENCE?
Because you can't actually see Materialistic Science's 2 biggest claims:
1. That All Living Things Came About by Evolution:
One half of this claim can be readily seen today: Micro-evolution.
Background Information:
All living things are divided into the following taxonomic categories:
Domain
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata (Vertebrates)
Class Mammalia
Order Carnivora
Family Canidae (Canine) Felidae (Feline)
Genus Canis Felis
Species Lupus Familiaris Catus
Breeds Poodle Persian
Breeds are not included in the scientific taxonomic categories.
Breeds are just varieties within a Species.
They are not defined by science. They are generally defined by people who breed these varieties for various purposes.
This classification system has been used for XXX years, long before Charles Darwin, and is still used today.
[CHART
"Canine, (family Canidae), also called canid, any of 36 living species of foxes, wolves (of which domestic dogs and dingoes can be considered sub-species), jackals, and other members of the dog family"
Canine MAMMAL
WRITTEN BY:
Encyclopaedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/animal/canine
An Example of Micro-Evolution:
We can see evolution working on the Family, Genus, or Species level – for example, within the Dog (Canine) Family:
Few would dispute that domesticated dogs descended from wolves. And domesticated dogs evolved into over 300 breeds.
This is small-scale evolution, or Micro-Evol that happened within the wolf Species.
As we have seen already, the most active rage of evolution is so limited that there is a debate among scientists about how to classify domesticated dogs.
Some say that:
• Dogs are actually the same Species as the gray wolf.
• Dogs are a sub-species of the gray wolf
• Dogs are a new Species that evolved from the gray wolf.
In other words,
This process happened over time as humans purposely selected for desirable genetic traits in wolves in order to produce dogs.
It may also have occurred when friendlier wolves chose to become involved with humans – maybe scavenging for for food scraps or eating domesticated livestock.
These friendlier wolves may have even had a genetic change where the XXXX missing/changedchromosome was
This resulted in an evolutionary process guided by man where wolves became dogs.
Because dogs and wolves can interbreed today, we can witness the process in reverse and see what wolf-dogs look like –
so we can actually witness the evolutionary steps or links between wolf and dog.
We also see another humanly-guided evolutionary process –
the creation of over 300 recognized dog Breeds – everything from tiny Chihuahuas to Great Danes.
Obviously the genetic code of the Dog Family has a lot of flexibility within it.
It has a lot of potential to adapt to changing environments –
or to be intentionally adapted by humans.
So, in the instance of the Dog Family, we can actually see the many "links" of evolution on the Family, Genus, or Species level.
This is evolution on a small scale.
This is evolution operating within a specific "kind" of animal.
This is an example of micro-evolution.
This same process has also been carried out in the humanly-guided evolution of many "kinds" of vegetables, fruits, and flowers.
People are continually developing more productive, stronger, and disease-resistant crops.
How does the Bible say that God created living things?
God said, "Let the land produce vegetation...according to their various kinds."
Genesis 1:11
God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Genesis 1:21
God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds; livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."
Genesis 1:24-25
God, himself, intentionally created each kind of living thing.
Kind is not defined in the Bible – it could reasonably be as specific as a Species or as broad as a Family: for example, the Cat Family which would include lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, domestic cats, etc.
But what does the use of the word kind tell us?
1. God intentionally made each kind.
2. God clearly distinguished one kind of living thing from another.
3. God cares about preserving each kind of living thing that he has made.
For God tells Noah before the Great Flood:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." ...They had with them [on the ark] every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind.
Genesis 6:19; 7:14
Illustration:
Generally, the distinction between the various kinds of living things are clearly recognizable to us today.
If you mixed up all the animals in the Dog Family with all the animals in the Cat Family, even most older elementary school children would be able to separate them back into their proper Families.
Families of animals are distinct enough from each other so that a child can tell the difference –
and that is how God made them.
Micro-evolution (small-scale evolution) seems to be everywhere.
Within these clear Family categories there is significant flexibility or adaptability built into their genetic makeup.
Adaptability to a changing environment is an obvious requirement for a Family or Species to survive.
Is it logical that an Intelligent Designer would set up the process of Micro-evolution?
Of course it is.
It is essential for living things to be able to adapt to changes in their environments.
So this is how any intelligent designer would design it.
That is, if he did not want everything he had created to go extinct when the environment changed.
Some Reasonable Conclusions:
1. Evolution Seems to Have Severe Limits.
• Evolution can be quite active on the Species level.
We see this all around us in domesticated animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) and plants (wheat, rice, tomatoes, roses, apples, citrus fruits, etc.).
This flexibility is very important for the adaptation and survival of all Species –
For when their environment changes Species must adapt to those changes to survive.
This is how you would expect an intelligent creator to design all living things.
But even this evolutionary activity is far more common within a Species than it is between Species!
In other words, Species rarely change from one Species to another Species.
Charles Darwin's finches on the Gollapogos islands is a famous example of one Species of finch becoming another Species of finch.
• But human guidance results in the most efficient and active evolution on a Species level!
Far more evolution occurs from the planning and guidance of the human mind than occurs in nature.
Examples!
The many varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, chickens, wheat, rice, corn, garden flowers, flowering trees, apples, citrus fruits, potatoes, tomatoes, etc., etc.
Implications?
• Intentional, human design is far more efficient and powerful in generating new varieties of things on the Species level than Natural Selection working on Random Mutations.
• So on the level where we can actually witness Evolution happening, a mind that designs purposeful outcomes is far more powerful than Darwinian Evolution.
• What can this tell us about the creation of living things on the higher Classification levels (Order or above) where we cannot witness Evolution happening?
• Evolution is less visibly active on the Genus level, and even less on the Family level.
We don't see many (if any) examples of one Genus evolving into another Genus:
For example, foxes have not become coyotes or jackals.
That is why it is reasonable to label this limited degree of evolution as Micro-Evolution.
On the Family level, evolution is even less visible:
Do we see mixing of the Canine (dog) Family and the Feline (cat) Family for example?
Do we see half-dog-half-cats running around in the same way that we see that we see half-wolf-half-dogs running around?
• Evolution seems increasingly less visible and increasingly questionable as you go up the ladder from Order to Class to Phylum to Kingdom.
There are a lot of missing links throughout these levels.
One Example:
According to evolutionary science, between whales and the whales' closest evolutionary relatives (that have been discovered) there are 9 evolutionary steps that have not been filled in by any animal (either living or fossilized).
That is 9 gaps.
So it takes considerable faith to believe that evolution operates actively at these levels.
But the assumption that Evolutionary Scientists make is this:
• Since evolution is so active on the Species level ...
• Evolution must also have been very active on the upper levels from Order to Kingdom.
This is a matter of faith on their part.
Since Materialistic Scientists do not believe in God, they have no other option but to believe in this assumption.
Evolutionary Scientists primary evidence for evolution is on the Species level.
When discussing the actual mechanics or process of evolution, Materialistic Scientists' most convincing evidence is on the Species level.
That is for obvious reasons, as we have seen in the Dog Family.
To assume that Species-level evolution automatically applies to Kingdom-level evolution is a leap of faith.
It would
So the belief of Evolutionary Scientists
So there is enough genetic flexibility within a particular Family of living things, so that evolutionary change can occur without a particular Family of animals turning into a different Family of animals.
These changes within a kind are called micro-evolution or small-scale evolution.
2. Evolution Seems to Primarily Operate Within the Boundaries of Kinds, as the Bible Calls Them.
God created living things ...
according to their kind.
Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25
There is reasonable evidence that evolution stays within the boundaries of a Kind:
Kind can reasonably be interpreted as Family (for example, Canidae–Canine), or Genus (for example, Canis–Wolf, Coyote, Jackal), or Species (for example, Canis Lupus–Gray Wolf, or Canis Lupus Familiaris–Domestic Dog ).
Evolution is especially active on the level of Species, which is clearly within the definition of Kinds.
But the evidence that evolution has routinely changed one Kind into another Kind at the Family level can be legitimately questioned.
Because of the absence of a significant number of intermediate or blurred animals even at this level of evolutionary activity requires a certain amount of faith to believe.
"The main difficulty is that the fossil record is notoriously incomplete. The animal must be buried in such a way that the bones are preserved long enough to fossilize and that rare fossil must later be exposed in order to be found. Nevertheless, some intermediates have been found."
3. But What About Genetic Evidence?
Genetic evidence seems to have breathed new life into the Theory of Evolution.
This is because:
• Similar genetic patterns are repeated from very simple life forms to human beings.
For example, humans share %%%%%%% of genes with chimps, bananas, etc.
Evolutionists interpret genetic evidence this way:
"There is overwhelming evidence (from the universal genetic code and the fundamental similarity of all cells) that all life on earth has descended from a common ancestor. Therefore any set of species can eventually be traced back to a single common ancestor."
Case Studies in Ecology and Evolution (Draft)
http://www.uvm.edu/~dstratto/bcor102/readings/01_phylogenetics.pdf
D. Stratton 2011 Draft
University of Vermont
But recent scientific research exposes a big weakness in Darwinian Evolution:
Over the last 150 years a lot of Darwinian Evolutionary theory is based on scenarios and speculation.
Until recently
When actually tested, are Random Mutations & Natural Selection powerful enough to evolve all life forms?
• Darwinian Evolution cannot even compete on the Species level against the Human Mind, as we have seen above.
• Amazingly, Darwinian Evolution tends to degrade genetic material, not build new genetic material.
In other words, it mainly helps a Species survive by degrading its genetic material!
How can this be?
[Behe]
Example: Polar Bear / Darwin's Famous Finches
This in turn locks a Species into place, making evolution into a new Species increasingly more difficult and unlikely.
For a more in depth scientific discussion of this see Behe's books: xxxxxxx yyyyyyy zzzzzzz
It can be understood in terms of God's design as well as it can be understood in terms of evolution:
On the surface, genetic evidence requires more thought than fossil and taxonomic evidence.
Bottom Line:
• How you view the genetic evidence is a matter of faith – for both Materialistic Scientists and believers in God.
• The genetic evidence fits with the belief of a Creator.