Where does reason come from?

Reason relies on faith. Reason requires faith. “Reason Alone!” A defense of reason by reason is circular argument and worthless.

When it comes down to it reason came from one of two places:

A. Preexisting intelligence by faith

B. mindless matter by faith

Why by faith?

Materialism as we have seen cannot contradicts all scientific observation. You cannot give what you haven’t got. Yet Darwinists believe that dead, unintelligent matter has produced intelligent life.

It makes much more sense to believe that human minds were created by The Great Mind- God. Materialism is not sufficient. Cannot explain reason. Materialism is not reasonable.

Darwinism on trial…origin of life

First off I want to make it clear that Darwin himself did not introduce the Big Bang theory or any origin of life theory. In fact to study Darwinism’s ideas about the beginnings of the universe we have to move beyond Darwin and beyond evolution.

This is an entirely different realm of study, the study of the origin of life.

Historical events cannot be repeated. We can’t repeat the origin of the universe. Science can help us determine what might have happened but it does not deal with history and cannot tell us how it happened.

Science has not been able to turn dead into living. we cannot create or recreate life.

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 13. No.4, 1988, p.348

The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever witnessed since the advent of the electron microscope. Professor of Biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis explains this complexity with an example:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man…”

An alternative theory:
Panspermia – temporary fix. Sure it pushes off the question for a little while. But you still have to answer the question, where did the aliens come from?

Chandra Wickramasinghe:

‘The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time.

‘Indeed all attempts to create life from non-life, starting from Pasteur, have been unsuccessful. Also recent geological evidence indicates that life was present on Earth over 3.6 billion years ago, at a time when the Earth was being pummeled by comet and meteorite impacts, and no primordial soup could have been expected to brew.

‘Not all microbes in interstellar space would survive of course, but the survival of even a minute fraction of microbes leaving one solar system and reaching the next site of planet formation would be enough for panspermia to be overwhelmingly more probable than starting life from scratch in a new location.

‘The odds against microbes surviving such a space journey pales into insignificance when compared with the insuperable odds against starting life anew in a warm little pond on the Earth.’⁷

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

– Lewontin R.C., “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan,
New York Review, January 9, 1997

This is an amazing quote. Here is a solid admission that a lot of science is counter intuitive. And that Darwinits are assuming materialism a poi. Before even looking at the evidence.

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis…there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal.

(Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, p 387, emp. in original)

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Super-ficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelli-gent Designer.

(Richard Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15,1982)

The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up!

(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, 1986, preface)

Poor Richard…if it looks like Design, then it probably is …Design!

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama… Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.

(Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p h3232)

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:
1. All the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence.
2. All the amino acids in the chain are lef-handed.
3. All of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called Peptide Bond.

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protien by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:
– The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types

= 1/20

– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly

= 1/20⁵⁰⁰ = 1/10⁶⁵⁰ = 1 chance in 10⁶⁵⁰

2. The probability of the amino acids being lef-handed:

– The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed

= 1/2

– The probability of all those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

= 1/2⁵⁰⁰ = 1/10¹⁵⁰ = 1 chance in 10¹⁵⁰

3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:
– The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”

= 1/2

– The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds

= 1/2⁴⁹⁹ = 1/10¹⁵⁰ = 1 chance in 10¹⁵⁰

Total Probability = 1/10⁶⁵⁰ X 1/10¹⁵⁰ X 1/10¹⁵⁰

= 1/10⁹⁵⁰
= 1 chance in 10⁹⁵⁰

So to summarise – The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10⁹⁵⁰.

The above is only a written probability. Practically, such a possibility has “0” chance at realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1/10⁵⁰ is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of realisation. A probability of “1/10⁹⁵⁰” is far beyond the limits of this definition.

7 – Britt, R., Panspermia Q and A: leading proponent Chandra Wickramasinghe, <http://www.space.com/searchforlife/chandra_sidebar_001027.html>, 27 October 2000. Return to text.

Darwinism on trial , the heart of the problem…

the worldview philosophy behind Darwinism is materialism or naturalism. Science is dominated by philosophy. For example think about the word, ‘chance.’ It is just a word. It is not a cause. It is actually nothing. It has no power in itself/ on its own. You see, science is a slave to philosophy.

Good science is based on good philosophy.
Science cannot be done without philosophy. There is no way around it. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes. They cannot prove the tools of science by running scientific tests. These assumptions are are not the results of the testing. They are already assumed to be true in order to run the tests in the first place!

These philosophical assumptions can drastically change the conclusions of experiments. This one is easy to understand. Every true scientists knows that when you come into an experiment assuming something/desiring to see something than you are biased. You are not open minded enough to even consider evidence that might not be what you are looking for and this is a bad thing. Assumptions can lead to bad science. Be open minded to both intelligent and natural causes and go to where the evidence leads.

Finally science does not speak. It does not say a word, but scientists do. When assumptions are in the way, scientist interpret the evidence in the way that they want to see it. In the way that their worldview and philosophy is leading them. Again, here be open minded and let the evidence lead you.

What is the worldview of a Darwinist (materialism and naturalism)?

Naturalism implies that “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.” (1)
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. (2)

Where does Naturalism go wrong?

Think about these five things that cannot be proven by science alone and matter alone:
1. mathematics and logic
2. metaphysical truths
3. ethical judgments
4. ascetic judgments
5. science itself.

Where does Materialism go wrong?

1. specified complexity cannot be explained materially.

2. human thoughts and theories are more than just materials. Chemicals are involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts.
The theory of materialism isn’t made of molecules.

3. If life were nothing more than materials, then we would be able to take all the materials of life and make a living being. We would have all the resources available to make life. Both a living body and a dead body are made up of the same chemicals, what is the difference? What accounts for consciousness?

4. If materialism was true, then everyone in all of human history who has ever had a a spiritual experience has been completely mistaken. Some of the world’s most rational, scientific, logical, and critical mind who have ever lived have been greatly mistaken or crazy. This seems highly unlikely. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, and Jesus Christ ( to name a few!)

5. If materialism is true then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. (Including the theory of materialism.) Chemicals cannot evaluate whether something is true or not. Chemicals do not reason, they react.

The irony is that even when Darwinists get something right, their worldview prevents us and them from believing themselves, because reason itself is impossible in a world ruled by chemicals.

When Darwinists assert that they rely on reason alone there is a problem already, because this statement cannot be justified by their own worldview.

Reason relies on faith. Reason requires faith. “Reason Alone!” A defense of reason by reason is circular argument and worthless.

When Naturalism/Materialism fail, so does Darwinism. More posts to come…

1. “Naturalism”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372-373.
2. Wikipedia the term “Materialism”

Main reference: I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman Geisler

Simple illustration

Johnny came downstairs from his bedroom to get some cereal for breakfast. On the table were some Alpha-bit (his favorite cereal) letters on the table spelling out the following message: “TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE – MOM”

Remembering a recent biology lesson Johnny had learned about in school, he did not attribute the message on the table to be from his mother. There was no sense to jump to conclusions. After all, life itself is merely a product of mindless, random, natural laws. The wind could have knocked over the box and those particular letters could have spelled out. Or maybe teh cat knocked the box over! Johnny did not want to do chores, he was on summer break. He was going to the beach to see Mary.

Scott liked Mary as well. Johnny had rushed to the beach to see Mary as soon as he finished breakfast. When Johnny got to the beach he saw Scott and Mary holding hands. He ran to meet them but when he looked down on the sand he saw another message, ” Mary loves Scott” inside of a heart. For a second Johnny’s heart sank but then quickly he recalled his biology class again and remembered that this was probably just a natural law at work. There was no reason to accept a conclusion he did not like! Perhaps the crabs or the waves shaped the unusual, mindless, random pattern in the sand. He would just have to ignore the hand holding evidence. That was meaningless.

Later that day, Johnny noticed the clouds were shaped in such a way as to seem to say, “Drink Coke.” Swirling wind patterns? Johnny thought to himself.

Johnny could no longer take it anymore. He could no longer play the game of denial. “Drink Coke” was a sure sign of intelligence. It was not a random, nor a thing of natural forces. Even though Johnny had not seen an airplane, he realized that there was a skywriter who wrote the message. Besides he really wanted to believe it, because it was a hot day. Leaving him parched and thirsty for Coke.

This has been a paraphrasing of an illustration in the book, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.

Evolution theory has many contradictions.

1. We don’t reject the theory of evolution simply because it is “just a theory.” We reject it because it is a theory that is inconsistent with scientific observations.

2. We don’t object to defining those creatures that survive to be the fittest for survival. We do, however, object to circular reasoning when it is used to date rocks and fossils. We object to circular reasoning when the theory of evolution is used to calibrate a molecular clock, and then that molecular clock is used to tell how long it took for species to evolve.

3. Some parts of the theory of evolution are testable, and some parts are not. Microevolution (the development of variations in species) has been confirmed by breeding experiments, and establishes the accuracy of Mendal’s genetic theory. Macroevolution (the development of new kinds of species) is only partially testable. The parts that are testable have failed the tests.

4. More and more scientists certainly are doubting the theory of evolution.

5. Disagreement among biologists (regarding the theory of evolution) are rampant because the evolutionary “facts” are merely opinions. There are no serious disagreements among biologists about other, non-evolutionary, biological concepts (how organs work, etc.) because these truths have been discovered using the scientific method.

6. The common ancestor of apes and humans hasn’t been found because there wasn’t any.

7. The theory of evolution must explain how life began on earth if it is to explain where all the existing life-forms came from. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that life could not have originated on its own through purely natural processes.

8. Random mutations, even when filtered by natural selection, cannot produce new biological features.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does explain why life could not have originated without conscious intent.

10. Mutations can prevent genes from functioning properly, but can’t produce genes with a previously unknown function.

11. Natural selection does explain variation within species, but cannot explain the origin of new species.

12. Speciation rate would have to greatly exceed extinction rate for some period of time for evolution to create all the species alive today. The current extinction rate is measurable, and (to some people) alarmingly high. Nobody has seen a new kind of plant or animal evolve naturally.

13. There are no transitional forms, living or fossilized.

14. Living things do show evidence of design.

15. Living things are irreducibly complex, which could not have been produced by a series of partially functional prototypes.

you didn’t evolve in your mom’s wound

scientists haven’t been able to demonstrate evolution in an embryo yet.

Have fun trying to figure that one out….

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

I have been longing to see ANY type of empirical evidence over unguided process that evolutionists claim! There is NONE. All the evidence I have seen is shallow, stretched to the max, and not reliable at all. It is ridiculous. Thus why many scientists have turned to Design.

Design by a Creator is reality, not illusion. Some ID guys are Christians, but not all. ID does not claim who the Creator is. It just is reaching for something deeper than the Darwinism.

ID guys do not usually argue about the common descent.

ID is not based on religious texts.

For most ID guys, “God” is nature, for others, God is in nature.

Creation is separate in many ways! The Creator is identified intelligently as the Christian God of the Bible. Common descent is defeated in the Creation story line. And obviously, Creationism is based on religious text. Creationism will agree that evolutionists and Darwinists are off base in their arguments and this is why Darwinists and evolutionists claim that ID and Creationism are one and the same. THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Darwinists will try to keep both ID and Creation OUT of the classroom and they will try to defeat both of us at the same time. Do not let them push the TRUTH down. As far as I am concerned let them defeat ID…we are not ID…we are Creationists! Do not let them group us into the same boat as ID!

Micro and Macro "evolution"

It is not “Evolution” that Christians struggle with, but rather Darwinism

It is important that people understand the major differences between Macro-evolution and
Micro-evolution.

While not ALL Christians will agree with me here, I think the majority (on one level or another) will agree that God allows for adaptations, in His own creation. This kind of “micro-evolution,” both Atheistic Darwinist and Christian scientists both will typically agree does occur in real life.
The Darwinists take these adaptions and make them into something much bigger than they really are. They claim that the adaptions are actually mutations and they are good mutations because through the course of natural selection…these are the mutations are essential for survuval. Survival of the fittest.

Where Christians will differ largly is that these adaptions are natural and a part of God’s plan. He made each and every animal unqice and special. Some would survive and others not.

The biggest difference between Christians and Darwins is the begining of all Creation. Christians believe that the world was created by God.

But even Darwinism did not claim an absolute “origin of all life.” Despite the obvious play on words – the tilte of Charlse Darwin’s book.

The biggest mistake Christians claim from within Darwinism is the origin of ALL beings from a one cell being. This type of macro-evolution, you will not find in Christian belief. God created each being unique and seperate from each other.

While Darwins try to find and exagerate the similarities between all beings. Christians find beauty in the differences. We stand in awe and wonder in how each and every being/species were created by God.

While Darwins stand in wonder of how each and every species developed from a one-cell being.
Christians stand in wonder of how each and every species developed from one being, Almighty God.

No Carnivores in the Garden?

Here is something I have been thinking a lot about (off and on) since my recent visit to Creation Museum.

Carnivores did not exist until after the Fall of man.
The assumption is that no animals died until after God killed the first animal to cover the human beings.

And think about what this means….
All the animal kingdom were vegetarians!

What would a wolf, tiger, shark, etc look like without those sharp teeth?
What did they eat!!!
I am just imaging all the adaptations that were made after the sin…..

And on a philosophical level….
Do you think that flesh was not suppose to be food?

Ok, well after doing some more research and thought I am keeping my mind open.
The more I think about it that more I have been thinking that death among animals (without souls) could quite possibly have happened even before the Fall of man.

1. God created all animals of all kinds. (Including Carnivores). Genesis 1:24-25 states “And God made the beasts [chayyah] of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind.. and God saw that it was good. In many places in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “chayyah” refers to animals that eat flesh. In Genesis 1:24 term seems to refer to an entire group of animals, contrasting “cattle” which are herbivores. This strongly suggests that there were already carnivores before the Fall.

2. the eco. system and overpopulation:
1.Unchecked reproduction would lead to nightmarish overcrowding in a matter of weeks or less.
2. Many organisms are obligatory predators.
3. Many animals have elaborate defense mechanisms against predators.
4. Countless small organisms are routinely killed as larger organisms eat and walk.
5. Many organisms die of accidental deaths.
6. For physical immortality, absolutely all aging would need to cease.
7. Physical immortality removes the need for reproduction.
8. Vital ecological cycles cannot work if organisms do not die.

3. Theologically this would still work: God killed the first animal to cover for humans sins, but it is a strecth to say he killed the first animal period.

The meat of either argument centers on the interpretation of these verses:

Genesis 2:16, which states that God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” A New Testament passage sometimes offered as support for the position is Romans 5:12 which states, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.”

Some assert that these verses indicate that no humans, animals, or plants died before before the Fall, and were created to be physcially immortal. Others allow plant death, on the grounds that God gave plants as food to us and other creatures (Genesis 1:29-30), or because plants are not conscious. Still others maintain that only humans were immortal before the Fall (Reem, 2005; Koukl, 2006). However, even if one interprets Genesis in a literal manner[1], when Biblical and scientific considerations are fully examined, the concept of “no physical death” is not well supported, and creates a host of theological, logical, and scientific problems. A more reasonable conclusion is that the verses in question refer to spiritual death, not physical death.

A lot of readings I will let you readfor yourself….

Did God create Carnivores on the 6th day?

It’s all about teeth… (THis one looks at both sides of the argument and has got me stumped. )
I think that all three ideas are feasible.

No phyiscal death before the Fall?

No human death before the fall? ( I like this arguement as well.)

Young Earth or Old Earth?

A recent question I came across sparked a rant…the question:
“If Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, where is the evidence?”
Answers In Genesis has a through article on this topic.
This has sparked my interests, even though I am still not sure if I agree with all of the conservative ideas and theories of Ken Ham and the guys at Answers in Genesis.

I recommend that you check out the article…

My highlight is the evidence from the Flood. And what I find very interesting is that both Young Earth and Old Earth Christians use the Flood evidence to support their arguments. This is so cool because even though, our time frames are quite different, it still goes to show that the evidence from the flood is so significant…how do non-Christians deal with it?

Now my rant and what I am learning:
Some times I spend a lot of time on complex, non-essentials. Before I go into too much depth, I will admit that this is a non-essential. We as Christians are free to argue and free to agree to disagree…in the end it is not important. We are all going to be living together in Heaven in the end…in fact my step-dad chooses not to argue for any side because he brings up an awesome point, he said, “I choose not to answer your question, because it distracts me from what is truly important.” He relieves that sharing the Gospel message and living the laws of the Bible are what is truly important not debating specific theological issues. I

As far as non-essentials go this one is fun to talk about, very interesting…and I will say I am no expert. I am still struggling through this issue myself and am extremely open to all sides of the debate.
Here is what I know and think of each side so far….
Ken Ham and the extreme conservative…believe that 6 day Creation is literal and actually occurred in 6 days!
This I always find so interesting and no one has really given me a good answer so far, (…I have studied the Answers in Genesis website and I even visited the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, Ohio…), but I always think to myself…yes, but the word for DAY in Hebrew “yom,” has several possible meanings…(even Answers in Genesis will admit that.)

The conservative, young earth believers are so set on the literal meaning, they never really even addressed the other liberal theories. They pretty much ignored the idea that “yom” could be interpreted differently and instead merely gave me “If the earth were a billion years old then…” arguments. While, had not heard some of these external evidence arguments before (I was impressed by some of them) I still was left wondering…because I value the internal evidence of the Bible. And so far, I think it is still possible to go either way according to Internal Biblical evidence. We know that with God all things are possible, even an old earth scenario. Besides there is some great external evidence that they are also ignoring when they are making their philosophical conservative arguments. (But this blog post is not my time to get into all these arguments, sorry for wetting your appetite.) Creation Museum did do a good job though of presenting the Gospel, that was impressive and honorable, for a conservative or liberal theologian!

The staff at Apologetics.com did a show on this topic and they are Old Earth proponents. It was a little surprising to me, but I really liked their arguments. They used a lot more internal evidence from within the Bible. They gave the “yom” argument, as stated above but they also referenced several other Bible texts (one particular in Hebrews) showing how God’s idea of time is completely different from ours as humans! We have no idea for sure how long each “yom/day/time period” consisted of in Genesis. It might have been thousands or even millions of years between each “day.” One really strong point that stood out from their arguments was from Creation account itself….One the third ‘day’, God lets the plants bear fruit….(this will take more than 24 hours normally). After day five God lets the animals be “fruitful.” And agian after day six God allows man to be fruitful, produce things, and fill the earth…
THe question could be asked, did God creat them with fruit or did he LET them create fruit over time?
Now agian, using my own words agianst myself, God could have done it in 6 days, sure! All things are possible with God!

Finally my final point is that I want to side with the Bible above and beyond choosing sides or picking the most correct solution. Sometimes this makes me seem like a flip flopper (or more conservative on some points and more liberal on others) but this is partly because people look at issues with a false dichotomy too many times. When in reality the middle ground is sometimes best. Be open on issues but back your self in the Word of God!