Darwinism as an explanation for life is dead. The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin's own test of falsification.
Dead, but it won't lie down. Evolutionism is propped up by the well organised and well funded enemies of Biblical Christianity as it is foundational to the secular humanist world view they hold so dear. This blog will criticise evolutionism and explore its harmful effects.
Assuming (as I do) that the review is accurate, the film (written and
produced by atheists) is not merely a highly inaccurate re-telling of the biblical
Noah Flood story, but takes extreme liberties with the character of Noah, misrepresents the nature of God and angels, and adds
numerous completely fantastic extra-biblical features.
The film departs so far from the Genesis story that viewers should have no
difficulty recognising that the two accounts have nothing in common other than a lot of water and the
names of some of the characters. Perhaps this is a good thing, a subtle lie may
be easier swallowed that a truly gross one. But then again....we humans have proved capable of swallowing some pretty gigantic lies, especially when they make us feel good about ourselves. The AiG review suggests that the film is something of an eco-parable, probably with an anti climate change agenda, and of course supports big bang to humans evolution.
AiG discourages people from seeing the film (while not calling for a boycott) but acknowledges
that it may bring up opportunities to talk about God, Genesis, the Noah
Flood, Jesus and the coming Judgment. This is not an easy thing for Christians to talk about, and atheists are
already talking up the idea of God as a moral monster for destroying all but a
handful of the earth’s inhabitants. We read in Genesis chapter 6 verse 5 onwards
that as man spread through the earth,
'God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually...And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the
earth, and was grieved in His heart’.
This is perhaps the most distressing
thing that has ever been written.
The bible teaches that God did have a plan to redeem men and
women, or some at least, and that it was a necessity in His divine plan of
salvation to terminate the wicked culture that had emerged though men’s
rebellion against him, men having ‘...filled the earth with violence...all
flesh having corrupted its way’ (subsequent verses in chapter 6). The Flood was a regrettably necessary part of that plan.
All the usual questions will come up. If God knew this level of human wickedness would
happen, why go ahead with the creation? Shouldn't He have practiced better safeguarding? What about innocent children? How much
warning and opportunity to change did people get? Who is He to judge us? etc. I’m afraid you will have
to address those questions to the Almighty; perhaps you will have better success
than Job (see Book of Job chapter 38 onwards).
Jesus referred to the Noah Flood as history, and as a
warning of future universal judgment. See Matthew’s Gospel chapter 24 verses
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the
angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of
Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the
flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered the ark...and the Flood destroyed them all.’
There are also 2 references in Peter's letters to the historicity of the Noah Flood, and the fact that in the last days people would deny the Flood and mock believers. See 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:3-9, which like Jesus' reference cited above, link the past judgment to future judgment. Both judgments are seen by scripture as deserved, inevitable and universal, but also with a possibility of being saved by turning to God.
I don’t have time right now to go into all the evidence for the
Flood, beyond a few bullet points
-there is plenty enough water to cover the whole earth if
you raise the ocean trenches, lower the highest mountains and allow for the ice
caps to melt (or rather to have not yet formed). This is perfectly feasible given a creation in which there were
no ocean trenches, ice caps or high mountains prior to the Flood. The ocean
trenches and high mountains could have been created by speeded up tectonic
plate activity at God’s command. This is hinted at in the Genesis account where
we read that as well as rain, God ‘broke up the fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis
chapter 7 verse 11).
-many ancient cultures have legends about a great flood
that covered the earth and in which a few people were saved through a boat.
-billions of fossils are found all over the earth in
sedimentaryrock which could only have been formed through massive movements of
-billions of tons of fossil fuel (oil, shale, gas, coal) exist in thick layers beneath the earth. The most feasible explanation for all this buried biomass is a global flood. Burial must have been rapid to have ensured anaerobic breakdown of the biomass to fossil fuel.
These matters are dealt with in more depth in various
It is appalling that God would destroy the earth in this
way. But if He did, then our response should rather than to judge our maker as
a moral monster, we should ask why He would have done this. Jesus linked the
past judgment by water to a coming judgment by fire. Will we judge God? Or will HE judge us? Wicked people are apt to deceive themselves about their own righteousness, but as Isaiah wrote 'Hail will sweep away the refuge of lies'.
It is what it is. If you can read this, there’s time to
repent and get right with God though faith in and obedience to Jesus, whom God
sent to be our Ark.
Watching last night’s University Challenge on BBC iPlayer, I
could not fail to notice yet another subversion of the programme to anti Christian
propaganda. And a rather nasty little one.
About 10 minutes into the Southampton versus Manchester semi
final, the well known Dawkinist Jeremy Paxman introduced a round on ‘Science,
philosophy and religion’. The three questions related to 3 of the ‘Four
horsemen of the New Atheists’, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Richard
Dawkins. Shame there aren’t 4 questions in a round as Sam Harris, the fourth
member of this group of aggressive anti-theist philosophers had to be left out.
The questions were easy, I got them all and so did the team. The last one about
Dawkins was gratuitously offensive, asking who had identified himself as a ‘tooth
fairy agnostic’ thus comparing the historically well attested Christian faith
which provided the intellectual and moral base for western civilisation with a
story told to small children.
In the same programme there was a positive question about Darwin. There is nothing subtle about this.
On three separate episodes of University Challenge I have personally watched (and I don't always watch it), Paxman
has introduced aggressively and offensively anti intelligent design set of questions.
His body language and tone of voice as he used terms like ‘pseudoscience’, made sneering jokes about a satirical video about 'Intelligent Falling' (gravity) and presented a totally false view of the infamous Dover trial made his position very clear. He is using the programme as an activist. This is wrong.
Another time I saw him on
The One Show, a BBC daily chat programme, raging against ‘this ridiculous nonsense’
of intelligent design. Viewers will have to take Paxman’s word for the fact that
the intelligent design hypothesis is ‘ridiculous nonsense’ because despite public interest the subject is never,
ever, ever covered on BBC TV or radio except in the context of
one sided misrepresentation and abuse, despite the publicly funded BBC's legal obligation to provide fair and balanced coverage.
I have no problem with University Challenge taking the
broadest possible liberal view of science, religion, the arts etc as long as
they stick to facts and recognise where there is legitimate uncertainty and
difference of opinion. But under Paxman, coverage of intelligent design and Christian faith in general is pure one sided bias, reflecting his own known opinions. As has been noted here
before, questions on University Challenge are often transparently used to
promote a secularist agenda and normalise the ‘Science versus religion, science
wins’ position of the aggressive secularists. This question round should have been
introduced as being about the New Atheists or anti-theistic philosophers ad their books,
not ‘Science, religion and philosophy’.
More routine anti Christian propaganda from the BBC. I have
stopped writing to complain about this flagrant bias which occurs across a wide range of programmes-news, drama, quiz shows, documentaries- and breaks the BBC
charter. As I have mentioned before, you just get a standard condescending letter denying your
experience and telling you that the BBC is right and you are wrong. People who would like balanced coverage of Darwin dissent have to endure this propaganda and censorship and have no remedy.
I hope that Paxman will find the grace of repentance,
if not then it will go hard with him because he has had many opportunities in this life and has used his exalted position at the BBC to attack the
Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only hope of salvation. God is very patient and forgiving but in the end, is not mocked. Christopher Hitchens has already gone to his appointed place , see Luke's Gospel chapter 16. He cannot send a message back to warn his friends to repent, they have already been given fair warning.
As St Paul wrote to the Corinthians; ‘Where is the wise man
and the debater? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?...the wisdom
of this age is coming to nothing...if anyone thinks he is wise, let him become
a fool for Christ’s sake.’ Paxman and the BBC governors won’t look so clever
when they stand before their Creator, Lord and Judge on that Day. The European Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction before the throne of God.
I have just read an interesting and thoughtful article by Danny Faulkner on Answers in Genesis about the problem for recent creationists posed by the apparent very large size of the universe and the issues for a biblical date of creation posed by light from distant stars and galaxies. Read it here.
The problem of the age of the earth tends to be the first objection raised in discussions about creation versus evolution. I have lost count of the times the age of the earth has been raised as a 'knock down' killer response when I have raised fundamental scientific objections to the Darwinian evolution hypothesis. These objections include the impossibility of abiogenesis, origin of information, observed fixity of species within genomic limits, deleterious nature of mutations, sudden appearance, extinctions and stasis in the fossil record, and many other issues that I raise on this blog from time to time. Rather than answer these problems, I find that evolutionists often tend to make straight for the presumed cast iron evidence for a very old cosmos and assume that they have killed my arguments.
As an aside, they have been hoodwinked into believing that a very old earth automatically guarantees that molecules to man evolution will occur. That is absolutely a non sequitur-if the mechanism fails (and it does) then adding time doesn't help. A very old earth is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for bacteria to turn into people via worms, reptiles and apes. Anyway, back to the article.
As a biblical Christian, I respond that I trust the Bible (for a range of reasons I don't have time to go into on this post) and so believe that the genealogies and histories are true, and that Jesus and the Apostles were correct when they referred to Adam, Enoch, Noah etc. as literal historical people. Therefore (because I accept the Bible as a primary resource) I believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The opponent then basically says. 'Ha! Got you! you're an ignorant moron who believes in fairy stories and denies science, so I don't have to answer any of the science problems you raised about evolution.' This is very convenient for them, as they can't satisfactorily answer any of the above mentioned science problems I raise.
I freely admit that I do not know enough mathematics, physics and astronomy to seriously address the science issues around distant starlight and how this might be consistent with a 6,000 year old creation. And neither do most of the people who so boldly assert that 'the scientists have proved it'. These people also believe a lot of other stuff they have been spoon fed since the age of 4 and never question. They are so very trusting of their masters. Some of these people also believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that Britain can borrow her way out of debt, despite the profound and readily accessible evidence to the contrary. I digress, although everything is connected.
However, as with all scientific evaluation of difficult questions, there are confounding factors and different angles on the apparent evidence for a very old cosmos and Earth. The most overarching and fundamental of these factors is the presence (even if only theoretical) of a Supreme Being who possesses and uses wisdom and power of a totally different order of magnitude than we can even imagine. As I posted yesterday, this factor tends to be automatically discounted, yet it is at the heart of the discussion. So why discount the only alternative to materialism? Not a very fair minded or reasonable thing for a disinterested seeker of truth, but very much what one would expect from a philosophically determined materialist.
Another thing I take into account when questioning billions of years is that I know very well that I have been systematically deceived over the biology of molecules to man evolution. The stuff I was taught at A level science-peppered moths, Galapagos finches, sickle cell disease, Miller-Urey experiment, embryology recapitulates phylogeny etc. (and all this is still being taught in schools today, by government diktat and prevented BY LAW from being questioned) is all a load of guff. I reserve the right to assume that the people who have deceived themselves and others over, for example, beneficial mutations as the central creative mechanism of evolution, may have been similarly lacking in objectivity and/or integrity over age of the cosmos issues.
What Faulkner essentially says in his essay is really very similar to what we read in the Book of Job in the Old Testament. After Job has said his piece, God responds, beginning with the question 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me how I made the stars, since you're so clever!'
At this stage I can hear the sniggers 'Oh yeah, so you're falling back on the 'goddidit' defence! Typical!' Well if you like, I am. However, what if God DID do it? Because that after all is the central argument of the biblical creationist, and indeed of all anywhere near orthodox Christians. Have you heard of the Nicene creed, or indeed read the historic accounts of the life of Jesus we call the four Gospels? If you extract the miraculous, you are left with nothing much at all, apart from some astounding moral teaching. Moral teaching which we can take or leave as we please if there is no Creator God to Whom we are accountable.
If the Christian religion has any validity whatsoever then Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin according to centuries' old prophecies (proving a God who exists outside of time and knows the end from the beginning), turned water into wine (His first miracle, see John's Gospel chapter 2) healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, raised the dead and after His crucifixion, ascended to heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. That's us by the way. As some anti Christian commentators have noted (although theistic evolutionists tend to shy away from this) if we are in for a penny, may as well be in for a pound. Either God performs mighty miracles or He does not, and if not, then why bother following Jesus at all? And if God can raise the dead, which science says is impossible, then why not create all things in 6 days?
The AiG article mentions that God created the stars to shine light on the Earth and mark times and seasons. To be fit for purpose, that light would have had to reach Earth by day 6 when Adam was created. Faulkner effectively suggests that the light was miraculously 'pulled', perhaps by some sort of inflation or 'stretching out' of space. There are several references to the Creator 'stretching out the heavens' in Isaiah. He freely admits that this would not be susceptible to any kind of scientific measurement or validation. It could not be. Back to Job, who was forced to admit that when confronted with the reality of God he was compelled to despise himself and repent in dust and ashes.
To simplify things, consider the rather large amount of plain water that Jesus miraculously and near-instantaneously turned into good, mature wine (John 2). If we could send wine experts Jancis Robinson and Oz Clarke back in a time machine and ask them to taste it, they would (like the steward in John 2:10) pronounce it rather good and ask for another glass. If you told them it was only 15 minutes old they would laugh you to scorn. If you pressed the point, and let's imagine they had a wine scientist with a portable laboratory along for the ride, they would have pointed out half a dozen science facts (not least the season of the year and the biology of fermentation) why the wine just had to be at least 6 months, probably 2 years, old. But they would be mistaken, sincerely mistaken but nevertheless wrong because they had left the possibility of a miracle out of their calculations.
If Oz and Jancis, smiling to each other knowingly about fairy tales, were then taken aside by an eye witness who told them what had really happened, they might well be incredulous, and understandably so. But if the witness persisted in their story, open minded people might ask some more questions, for example about the integrity of the witness and the character and person of the man who had allegedly performed this miracle, Jesus. On the other hand, they might prefer to stick to their philosophical position that miracles never, ever happen, and so come to the only other possible conclusion-that there was trickery and deceit at work here.
Miracles are sovereign acts of God, not repeatable acts of nature. They are therefore not susceptible to the ordinary scientific rules of testing, prediction and falsification. This sounds like special pleading, OK so perhaps it does. That is why we need to take a broad, rounded view of the reasons why Jesus of Nazareth is a faithful witness who ought to be trusted. That's too big a tangent to go off on in this post, there is a lot elsewhere. Lee Strobel's book 'The Case for Christ' isn't a bad start..
So, in the end it rests on the reliability of Scripture and faith in God and Jesus. Biblical creationists need to face this, admit that we don't have a testable scientific hypothesis to account for the apparent great age of the cosmos as suggested by light from distant stars. We must admit that we trust the Bible because we trust Jesus, for which trust we are certain that we have adequate cause. However, there are a whole bunch of things in biology for which the materialists have absolutely no explanation, and with less excuse given their insistence on the supremacy of the scientific method. Using the issue of time as a distraction tactic from issues like the irreducible complexity of (for example) Krebs cycle which COULD NOT POSSIBLY have evolved by 'numerous successive gradual adaptations' since nothing works until it all works is lazy and a big fail.
Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.'
I listened to a brief item early morning on Radio 4 last
week with an interviewer and scientists talking about water in space. The context
was the recent flooding in England and the water cycle, and the question came
up about the total amount of water on earth.The interviewer asked the scientist (sorry I wasn’t able to listen again
and forget the name) how water came to be in the first place. It’s a question
He said there were ‘... 2, maybe 3, theories’ about where the
water came from. The first was that ‘when the earth and moon were formed by a
planet the size of Mars smashing into a collection of rocks’ the water was
present in the rocks and leaked out or something to form the sea. The second was that the water arrived in comets. (That would be an awful lot of comets, given how very few are seen-ever- let alone how few crash into the earth. Do any? And what about collateral impact damage from crashing comets? But we always have the appeal to 'deep evolutionary time' to sort out issues like that-ED.) The
third, which he seemed rather vague about, was that the water had come out of
volcanic magma. Or maybe the water came from asteroids. Whatever.
The interviewer appeared to share my feelings about the level
of explanatory power of this stuff. She said ‘So we don’t have a clue then?’ He
was unable to find a response to this and the item ended. It seemed to me that the scientist had merely reeled off a list of known celestial objects and said 'Any of them could have done it...although we have no evidence at all.'
There was no consideration of the possibility that
the planet had been created by a superior being in something like its present form with water and
other necessities to support organic life. This possibility was not mentioned, even to dismiss it. This demonstrates a pretty good example of ‘the philosophical assumption
of materialism’ by means of which any discussion about origins begins by axiomatically
excluding the possibility of divine action. This assumption is understood to be too basic to need stating.
n I thought I’d do a little bit of research, and Googled on
‘origin of water’. Wikipedia came
up first and began by saying
of water on Earth, or the reason that there is clearly more water on the
Earth than on the other planets of the Solar System, has not been clarified.
There are several acknowledged theories as to how the world's oceans were
formed over the last 4.6 billion years.’
I’m not going to quote from the
article in detail or argue against its assumptions, but it certainly contains conflicting and contradictory ideas
and illustrates the lack of evidence and indeed calls for citations. Evidence. Lack. Of.
The next item to
come up was from the Smithsonian
mag and included the following paragraph
“Water is so vital to our
survival, but strangely enough, we don’t know the first thing about
it—literally the first. Where does water, a giver and taker of life on planet
Earth, come from? When I was in junior high school, my science teacher taught
us about the water cycle—evaporation from oceans and lakes, condensation
forming clouds , rain refilling oceans and lakes—and it all made sense. Except
for one thing: None of the details explained where the water came fromto begin
with. I asked, but my teacher looked as if I’d sought the sound of one hand
clapping.” (my bold-ED)
The author went on to state standard Big
Bang theory, which has been summarised by creationists as ‘Once upon a time
there was nothing, then the nothing became unstable, exploded, and made
everything.’ Crude though this might be, I still think it is fair to ask where the 'something' came from, and how the laws of physics which as we all know are VERY precisely fine tuned for life came to be, and how you get order from a explosion.
Anyway, we were told that water was made in the stars which earlier made themselves from the stuff thrown
out in the 'Big Bang’. And then the water the stars made somehow got dumped on Earth and stayed there. Why it didn't all boil off into space wasn't explained, although no doubt some Darwinian 'might have's could be produced.
This 'maybe...could have been...probably did...must have done....' account of water's origin seems to me rather less satisfactory, less
probable and to depend on more unseen and untestable entities (Occam's Razor) that the Genesis account of
creation. And again, we return to the (usually unstated but always present)
philosophical assumption of materialism. This essentially runs that there must be a materialistic
explanation, however improbable and even if we have conflicting evidence and absolutely no idea what it is, because it MUST NOT have been
God. This assumption was evident in the radio conversation that started me on this piece.
Of course as with all origins
science, it is not possible to test this theory one way or the other. Computer models
are just that, however well designed they inevitably depend on inputs and assumptions. They can never re-create
the original conditions or repeat unique historical events. They certainly can't rule out the creation of a mature cosmos, solar system and Earth at a moment in history consistent with the biblical genealogies (around 4,000 BC). On the latter point, I don't want to go off at length about the age of the Earth today beyond repeating that (A) due to the shortage of time machines, all dating methods are based on assumptions about the distant past that we can't validate by repeatable testing, and (B) a deity of the power and wisdom of the One described in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures 'could have'(if I may borrow that favourite Darwinian term) spoken into being the cosmos, Earth, sea and all that is in them in 6 days. If this happened then the cosmos and Earth, like mature trees, a breathable atmosphere and the first adult human couple, would INEVITABLY have seemed older than 6 days due to the necessity of being fit for immediate use. Same as the water into wine miracle.
Observing Mars and Venus, our
nearest planetary neighbours, is instructive. They are roughly the same size as
Earth and not very different in their orbits of the Sun. We now know that
neither have liquid water (*) and for various other reasons neither can support life (although we can still enjoy sci-fi written about Mars and Venus in earlier years-especially C S Lewis' brilliant Ransom trilogy). Conditions on Earth are VERY special in many ways, not least in
the presence of large amounts of liquid water. Water is only liquid (i.e. not steam or ice) in a very narrow temperature range, one of many 'Goldilocks factors' pointing to design. Our planet certainly looks as if it was
designed to support carbon based life including humans. Why is this possibility never considered in media discussions about origins?
Just as the Earth looks designed,
the various speculations about a non-designed origin also look designed. Designed by the opponents of biblical Christianity to nudge men and women into believing that science has quite properly and by a process of reason and evidence ruled God out of the picture. Not only is this both incorrect and a logical fallacy, but ignores the fact that God has revealed Himself to us not only in nature but also though Israel, the prophets and through
Jesus, who rose from the dead. Why do those who control our mainstream broadcast and print media and education systems struggle so hard to prevent this possibility even being discussed? In any discussion of origins, the unstated assumption is that God is not to be even considered as a possibility. It is a recurring themes of this blog that the continual repetition of this kind of speculation deliberately builds up the impression that science has disproved God and particularly ruled out creation. Both assumptions are simply not true.
Jesus said ‘I am the water of
life. He who drinks of this living water will never thirst again.’ see John’s Gospel
4:10 and 7:37. Water is often used in Scripture as a metaphor for life. Anyone who
comes to Jesus in penitent faith will be allowed to drink water from the River
of Life (Revelation 22:1.) That is an immeasurably better prospect than casting around in ever
decreasing circles trying to find some explanation other than the one which we
have been given in God’s account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.
(*) Whether Mars has buried frozen water now and/or liquid water in the past is another matter. I have posted about the 'search for water and therefore evidence suggesting possible life on Mars' hype several times in the past.
PS there is plenty enough water on the planet for a global flood. All you need to do is raise the deep ocean trenches and lower the major mountain ranges and you get the whole planet covered. Speeded up tectonic plate activity could have done this and would also account for past continental drift e.g. America drifting away from Africa etc. Terrifying but plausible given a VERY angry God judging a wicked humanity (Genesis chapters 6 and 7). Jesus and Peter both compared the suddenness (although warned about) and finality of the Noah Flood to that of the coming judgment.
People laughed about the Flood before it happened. Not subsequently. 'As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the day of the son of Man' Matthew 24:37-44
Today is Question Evolution Day, so here are some questions around
Darwinism and molecules to man evolution that aren’t asked as often as they
should be. I have never heard satisfactory answers to any of them. They are in
no particular order, just the first dozen questions that come into my head. Please note, these questions mainly concern science and facts, not religious belief. If questioning Darwin raises profound religious and/or philosophical issues, then so does accepting Darwin. There should be a level playing field and no questions barred from being put and considered.
1)Why is Charles Darwin so often credited with
coming up with the idea of evolution when it goes back at least to the ancient
Greek philosophers such as Epicurus?
2)How did the first life appear from non life? NB 'gradually, you dummy....in outer space....science is working on it, you cretin... there are computer models that explain it, you IDiot...etc are not acceptable answers
3)Why is sickle cell disease used as an example of
a beneficial mutation when this is so obviously a case of special pleading,
like calling a broken leg or schizophrenia beneficial if they get you out of
military service? It’s a DISEASE caused by a deformed and malfunctioning
protein for pity’s sake!!!
4)Why are the Haeckel embryo drawings or at least
ideas derived from them (embryology recapitulates phylogeny) still used in our education systems to teach evolution when they were proven long ago (by Haeckel’s
university, not Ken Ham) to be fakes produced by a fanatical Darwinist as a
5)Why is the Piltdown Man FRAUD that deceived the masses for 40 years routinely dismissed as a ‘hoax’?
Why are the rocks not filled with innumerable
fossils of intermediate forms?' (a question Darwin himself asked in ‘Origin’). Despite
much hyping and overinterpretation of a tiny handful of possible candidates
like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik, the intermediate forms remain stubbornly
absent. If evolution by very gradual change over many thousands of years were
true, and if fossil creating events occurred with a frequency of, say, every
500 to 1,000 years or so building the rock layers up gradually over millions of years, we would expect
to see the innumerable numbers of intermediate forms that Darwin’s theory
predicts. We don't, but are lectured to by the 'experts' as if there was a perfect progression of evolutionary sequences. (NB Dr Vij Sodera's excellent book 'One Small Speck to Man: The Evolution Myth' examines the often quoted supposed whale sequence and shows why its rubbish.)
7)On the question of the missing intermediate
forms, why should we believe that animals could gradually change
into entirely different forms by gradual changes, when intermediate quarter formed,
half formed 'neither one thing nor the other' etc structures would have conferred no selective benefit and
therefore been eliminated by natural selection? Darwin recognised this problem
but merely side stepped it with many an ‘I see no difficulty in imagining...may
we not believe...who could be so rash as to suppose that this might not have
8)Why did Darwin assume that because relatively small
degrees of variation (in, for example, dogs and pigeons) could be achieved by intelligent animal breeders working
with mind, memory, colleagues and purpose, that natural selection left to itself could,
although mindless, purposeless and blind, do ‘immeasurably more’? This was his primary argument, and it was based on untestable speculation, not repeatable observation.
9)...especially when he himself wrote in ‘Origin’
that plant and animal breeders knew the necessity of ‘roguing’ (removing
undesired specimens from the gene pool before they bred) to avoid random
breeding undoing the work of selection. Which it is observed to do very rapidly
when the designing, controlling hand of the breeder is removed.
10)Why do critics of Darwin dissent routinely
accuse the dissenters of trying to overrule science with religion, when they
bring arguments based on logic, facts and reason? (NB this is not to deny that
there is an element in creationism whose primary argument is ‘we will believe God’s
word, the Bible, whatever you say’. That is a separate albeit related (see
point 11) issue. I’m talking about abiogenesis, DNA information, genetic entropy, irreducible
complexity, fossil evidence (lack of) etc. Why are these arguments dismissed as
religious if not to rig the playing field so that only one answer is possible?
11)Why is the Christian belief of most (not all) Darwin
dissenters used as an argument against them, while their critics’ beliefs are
assumed to be neutral when in fact they are anything but? In Stephen Meyer’s
book ‘Signature in the Cell’ he described a radio interview with prominent
atheist (and evolutionist) Eugenie Scott. In this he was shouted down by the
interviewer for being a Christian (therefore obviously biased, so his arguments from mathematics and genetics could be dismissed without a hearing) while Scott was
not deemed to be biased towards Darwinism by her well known militant atheism.
12)Why, given that they have interviewed Muslim and
Irish Republican apologists for violence and others with extreme, outlying and
unpopular views, won’t the BBC ever interview intelligent design or creationist
advocates-for example Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer when they were on recent UK
13)What do you think happens when we die?
The last question is not directly related to Darwin, but it
is one I suggest the reader ought to think about. Because there is a hypothesis
based on evidence at least as good as Darwin’s speculations that our
personality survives death and we then, in an eternal condition, get to meet
our Maker, to give account for and receive recompense for what we did and
failed to do during our time on earth. This is what the Christian church
teaches, and if it is true then it really is the most important thing we should consider. And there is a hypothesis that the whole Darwin/evolution hypothesis was developed and promoted by deists, atheists and revolutionaries in order to discredit the message of God and Christ in order to clear the way for their preferred beliefs and way of living. Jesus frequently referred to Genesis as history, so if Genesis is discredited, so are the words of Jesus.
Whatever. Think about it, or don’t, as you see fit. But the
I have been busy with other matters and preparing to travel so
have only watched the first hour or so of the Nye/Ham debate, but noticed a lot
of comment from elsewhere, particularly from theistic evolutionists GC Science
and Tyler Franke. I wish these people well while disagreeing with them over
Plenty of comment is already on line. Will this debate prove
to be some kind of turning point? Or a historic landmark like the Scopes
trial? Or a legend like the Wilberforce/Huxley debate. Or will the mainstream media misrepresent, ignore and try to bury it? I don’t know, but on present showing I suspect the latter.
One of my predictions was correct anyway, the BBC radio 4 news
I listen to daily hasn’t made any mention of the debate. I might have missed it, but I did hear them broadcast 2 more of their trademark 'Science shows evolution is true and the Bible isn’t’ stories.
Both of them hyped and over interpreted evidence as usual. One
concerns camel bones and has been rather easily refuted. The other story is
about some ancient footprints in sandstone which were exposed by storms. They
have been confidently dated at 800,000 years (HOW?) which seems odd to me since
they were exposed and then washed away by a storm in a few days. Has there really not
been such a storm for nearly a million years since the prints were made and then covered? The BBC TV news broadcast an artist’s impression
of a whole community of supposed human ancestors (based on some very indistinct
impressions in mud???) in a hyping of evidence remarkably reminiscent of the
Nebraska Man scam. And this trivial, over interpreted evidence of not very much was considered more newsworthy than the Nye/Ham
Of course I can’t prove that the BBC deliberately broadcasts
stories like this to use as propaganda nor at what level the editorial decision
to ignore the debate was made. It is in the nature of conspirators and
propagandists to cover their tracks. The reader can draw their own conclusions from the fact that when this debate was major intellectual/cultural news worldwide, it ignored it and ran one anti-Bible and another pro-Darwin story instead.
I predicted that if Ham had fouled up then the BBC would have been all over the debate. He didn't.
debate I received many emails, phone calls, letters, Facebook postings, and
even certified mail telling me what I should say to Bill Nye. About 150–200
people gave me advice. Some Christians (including Christian leaders) wrote
articles declaring what they would do in a debate with Mr. Nye, and they knew I
would have the wrong approach—and that was before they even heard the debate! I also knew what would
happen after the debate—I would be critiqued by friend and foe alike for what I
said or didn’t say. Yes, even some of our supporters were unhappy with me for
not including more of what they see as evidences. Most of them didn’t seem to
comprehend the real nature of the battle. I went into the debate
knowing that I was opening myself up to the world—and no matter what I did,
people from both sides would have negative responses. And that’s exactly what
If it had been me rather
than Ham doing the debate, I would probably
have said much more about irreducible complexity, origin of life scenarios and mutations
and avoided age of the earth (*). But I wasn’t, Ham was. He says in his own
reflection that tactically he was determined to not say too much about the
specifics of the scientific evidence and arguments against evolution, which is well
documented on sites like AiG, CMI, ICR and elsewhere. He determined instead to try to
make the case that the repeatable, operational science that puts rockets on the moon and gives us
Smartphones and medicines is quite different to the historical science that claims to know
what happened in the unobservable past, while relying on many untestable assumptions.
He raised the issue of interpretation of evidence depending on materialistic or Biblical worldviews as being an issue with which we needed to come to terms. He emphasized the ‘bait and switch’ tactics which are routinely used to argue
massive conclusions from tiny and/or irrelevant pieces of evidence. Time will
tell if this was the best tactic, perhaps.
Anyway, I have neither the
time nor the inclination to attempt a full appraisal of the debate, others are doing so from both sides and the middle (if there is a middle). If Ham proves
successful in persuading even a few people to think outside the box and
question the (generally unstated) philosophical assumption of naturalism then
it will have been worthwhile. But the massive evolution propaganda machine will
carry on doing what it does-portraying Darwin skepticism as ‘religion versus science’,
misrepresenting creationists and generally keeping up the evolutionist propaganda
that there is no scientific case to be made against molecules to man evolution.
And some of us, perhaps a growing
number, will continue to point out that Emperor Charlie is stark bollock naked.
(*) a very old earth is a necessary BUT NOT A SUFFICIENT condition for molecules to man evolution to have occurred. If the biology says that a naturalistic unguided origin of life is so improbable that we might as well say impossible (and it does) then more time doesn't help. Furthermore, the God of the Bible if He can raise the dead and turn water into wine instantaneously is quite capable of creating a MATURE cosmos in 6 days. a MATURE (i.e. currently fit for purpose) cosmos, world and plants animals and people would OF NECESSITY have appeared old, just like that water turned into wine. That's about all I have to say on the age of the earth.
There has been a lot of comment, much of it poisonous, about the forthcoming debate at the Answers in Genesis HQ between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. See here for details.
I'm not sure I will listen live as i have a lot else to do, but as there has been so much comment I will try to catch up later. I have just watched a YouTube video about the debate from a smug atheist who said it should not be happening. She repeatedly used offensive language of the Darwin dissenters, made no attempt to answer a single of our arguments, deployed the most outrageous straw man misrepresentation and criticised Bill Nye for engaging in discussion. This is the same line taken by Richard Dawkins. You see, in their eyes there simply is nothing to debate. Evolution is a FAC T FACT FACTFACTFACT!!!!! and as determined by the authorities and the academy, and anyone who questions it is a dangerous HERETIC who must be SILENCED.
But wait a minute, wasn't that the line taken by the mediaeval Catholic papacy and Islamic theocracy? and isn't evolution supposed to be science? And aren't you supposed to be able to question anything in science? And aren't scientific theories supposed to be open to potentially falsifying arguments? So if it can't be legitimately questioned, and if awkward questions are not allowed to be heard as they might confuse people, then is evolution science or is it religion?
No matter. I have a few tentative predictions about the debate.
1) Whatever happens, both sides will claim victory, but the atheist side will claim it more vociferously. 2) Unless Ken Ham drops a real clanger and gives a useable sound bite to the opposition, the mainstream media (especially the BBC) will avoid reporting the debate. Where the mainstream media does report it, it will be as a great victory for 'reason' by which they mean materialism. 3) Nye will do his best to play up the 'religious belief versus science fact' line.
4) Nye will concentrate on age of the earth arguments and appeal to authority (i.e. 'peer review'). He will use the 'Climbing Mount Improbable' argument when confronted with the evidence from biology and history that plant and animal species vary only slightly within their demonstrable genomic envelopes.
5) There will be a lot of misrepresentation and harsh words said on Twitter and elsewhere on line
6) A few, perhaps a very few, people will hear some scientific arguments against molecules to man evolution that they never heard before. In some cases, they will actually think about these arguments, and this may lead to a line of enquiry that may take them way out of their comfort zone. They may or may not find the courage to continue that line of reasoning and take it to a logical conclusion. It is this possibility that, I fear, is the reason why the militant atheists are so angry with Bill Nye for picking up the gauntlet. They above all do not want these arguments heard.
7) A far larger number of people will ignore, snigger, snort, curse and get back to the latest celebrity gossip and sport. Which is obviously far more important to them than their eternal destiny.