Darwin's Doctrines vs. the Facts

As Mark Twain once quipped: ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact’. Last year marked the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin whose dubious theory of Evolution plays fast and loose with the facts, as I demonstrate below.

The fact is: The known universe itself exists as it does because of many variables which, if not precisely as they are now, would render the universe itself so different, that we would not exist. The doctrine Evolution asks us to believe is that there are countless parallel universes that must have developed spontaneously and we happen to be in the one that is able to sustain life. This really is a doctrine because there is no scientific proof whatsoever that there are any other universes than this one.

The fact is: The features of our planet and its moon point to the impossibility of it being old enough to support the absurd periods of time required by Evolutionary doctrine. Everything from the mere inch-deep dust on the moon to the Polonium 210 halos in rocks on earth show this. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe keeps adding millions of years at will even though carbon 14 dating is left far behind.

This brings us to the ‘Laws of Nature’ that Evolutionary doctrine treats with contempt. The Law of entropy says that everything runs down if left to itself. It does not automatically get better (or more evolved). (The same is true of the Laws of Thermodynamics) The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe that life evolves from the simple to the complex with all creatures, given enough time, on their way toward evolving into ‘higher forms’ of themselves.

What about the law that matter is neither created nor destroyed? The facts bear this out. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that some random ‘big bang’ resulted in the universe. Does that doctrine show itself to be more scientific (require less ‘faith’) than the biblical doctrine of creation?

The fact is: the earth is perfectly suited for life to thrive. Is this a coincidence of monumental proportions? Both Creationists and Evolutionists say no. The fact is: life as we know it thrives only when the environment is suited to it. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that life suited itself (adapted itself) to thrive in earth’s (or any planet’s) environment. Is that a fact scientifically? Let them find life (other than as we know it) in an alien environment or create life under laboratory or any other conditions, and then they can claim to be scientific rather than simply doctrinaire.

The facts are that living things always produce young like their parents. (The Law of Biogenesis). Believers in Evolution won’t accept such a law. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that life forms give birth eventually to young unlike themselves and eventually utterly different ‘more highly evolved’ forms of life (birds from lizards &c.).

The facts are that mutations or odd individuals produced by chromosomal change (e.g. Down’s Syndrome), that occur in nature are overwhelmingly inclined to be harmful (99%). And even if they are not lethal, the mutations are recessive traits and don’t get transmitted to subsequent generations. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that favorable mutations or chromosomal changes have occurred simultaneously to enough individuals to change them from one species into another.

The facts are that we have found no fossil evidence of ‘missing link’ life forms. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that there must be millions and millions of such missing links. (Some desperate Evolutionists have even concocted hoaxes in the past). Missing links amount to missing facts that expose Darwinism as doctrine-based, not fact-based.

The facts are we see “irreducibly complex” living things that - without having all the features they have – would not exist in the first place. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that these organisms lived prior to having these features and gradually acquired them by “natural selection”. Darwin himself conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 1

The facts are that the current population of the world is most consistent with descent from the six members of Noah’s family over a period of around 6,000 years. The doctrine Evolutionary theory asks us to believe is that man gradually evolved over millions of years. The absurdity of Evolutionary theory is clear. If man were between 1 and 14 million years old (Evolutionists can’t decide), then people would now populate the earth to something like the tune of 10602. Even if it were ‘only’ 10 to the one-hundredth power the world’s population would be incomparably different from what the facts are2.

The fact is: by almost anyone’s standards, Evolutionary theory requires more than enough faith (and worship?) to be classified as religion rather than science. Darwinism should come out of the closet as the religion that it is, rather than benefit from the popular credence given to science. As a religion, on a “level playing field” against Christianity, Darwinism would be defeated. But by masquerading as “science” and benefitting from the credence real science deserves, Darwinism gains followers as it moves into its third century.

God forbid that we are so deceived by “junk science” that me miss what science is intended to show us: the glory of God.

The fact is: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.(Psalm 19.1-4)
It Christianity “doctrine-based”? Of course it is. But our faith is also fact-based, with plenty of evidence all around us in both the natural world and the historical world of human experience. The fact is: God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Last month I talked about the problem of “invisibility”. This month I remind you of the old adage: “there are none so blind as those who would not see”. What a sin it is for many who are powerful scientists to fail to see the evidence because they cannot cope with the implications of it! Of them it was written long ago: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen” (Romans 1:25).

Who are using their minds and who aren't?

Although ridiculing our intelligence plays a big part in their campaign against believers, atheists cannot really prove that believers are stupid. Too many smart people have been believers – Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Pasteur and many more come to mind. The geneticist Gregor Mendel was even an ordained clergyman. No - atheists cannot prove that believers lack intelligence. Nor can believers argue that atheists are stupid. There are plenty of clever ones out there, as we know. They are constantly writing books and making films to expose themselves to us.

What we can agree on is that none of us “knows it all” and that all of us are missing something. Unlimited striving to attain further knowledge and understanding is something unbelievers and believers alike should be doing as human beings. Humility before the vast expanse of the unknown is a good thing. Arrogance is inconsistent with any claim to truly seeking knowledge. This is why atheists need to stop posturing as “know it alls” and admit that they are missing that sense of the reality of spiritual things that believers are getting by the billions, through all times and places.

Am I saying that atheists aren't “spiritual”? Yes. That is my argument. They are such materialists that they have utterly excluded the possibility that they will ever receive the spiritual “signals” that God is giving other human beings. As Jesus would put it, atheists have “blasphemed the Holy Spirit” and committed “the unforgivable sin”. This is because atheists have switched off their access to the only Gospel that can save them and committed themselves to not listening to only voice that can describe to them that world of God that human brains have been hard-wired to contemplate.

Ironically, of course, atheists claim to be the ones who are using their minds and would accuse believers of closing theirs and “committing intellectual suicide”. What seems to be the case, however, is that the atheists are refusing to use their whole brains, by never letting their thoughts go to that part of the brain that God designed to grasp the transcendent. They are closed-minded and proud of it! Just look at their popular arguments, in print and on YouTube etc. They claim they can rip to shreds anyone who claims that human minds should be open to the spiritual. To them, religious certainty and even spiritual openess are equivalent to the absurd willingness to see some “spaghetti monster in the sky”.

But are the things to which believers minds are open nothing more than celestial pasta, or “dragons on the street” or other hallucinations we are accused of foisting upon the world? No. Atheistic attempts to impune religious belief as ridiculous are but their own sad attempts to justify the closing of their own minds.

The question still remains: Who are really using their heads and who aren't?

What's the big deal about invisibility?

Epiphany” (from the Greek ἐπιφάνεια) means “appearance", "manifestation") and is a season beginning next month that celebrates the occasions when the divine nature of Christ was revealed at various times in the Scripture. Epiphany commemorates such things as the star of Bethlehem and the miracles and transfiguration of Christ. Such things made Christ's identity as God visible during an earthly ministry when His divine nature was usually invisible.

Before Christmas, I again led a Bible Study for a group of blind people. As always, they were a wonderful group with whom to share Christian faith – and you know what? They didn't have a problem with God's invisibility! They didn't have a problem with angels being invisible, Heaven being invisible, all evidence of God's existence being invisible to them – because, as visually handicapped people, everything was invisible to them.

Their faith brought home once more to me the fatuous foolishness of the argument of today's atheists that we believers should be ashamed of our God because He is normally not visible. They say “they don't see the evidence of God” and the burden of proof is with us to show that God is real.

Jesus said, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3.8). Invisibility is part of the realm of faith, but, having said that, faith must “take a number”, because it is but one of countless invisible realities that we live with every day and believe in, at times staking our lives upon, despite not being visible to our eyes.

How many natural (and man-made) phenomena are invisible to you, yet you don't doubt their existence? We use wireless internet – and that signal, like other man-made television, radio and other waves, criss-crossing all over us all the time is invisible. Add to that all natural cosmic radiation and waves and you have a huge amount of reality that is invisible. Now, what about all those things that are too small to see the electrons and protons of atomic physics without which our life would be impossible? Their nature, in addition to being invisible, is largely theoretical!

And how many historical realities are invisible to you? Did you see the local water authority test your drinking water for safety before you poured yourself a glass? How do you know it's safe? And, looking further back, do you see Alexander the Great conquering his vast empire. Do you see America's founding father planning to build a new nation? Were you there to “see” anything that took place before the invention of the photograph? Are you sure the great-great Aunt you had really existed, since you have never seen her? Yes it is absurd to doubt facts of history that are “invisible”. By the same token it is absurd to waste one nano-second doubting the realities of God, let alone jeopardize your eternal salvation, just because they are invisible at the moment. Temporary invisibility really is no big deal!

Instead, this Epiphany and always, thank God that He sent His Son to be our Redeemer and Savior. For He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1.15-16).

Elemental, my dear apologist

Speaking of nature - in Psalm 19 - the Bible says "there is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard..." Is nature "telling the glory of God" on a molecular level? Jesus recalled the vivid image of speaking stones in Habakkuk 2.11, when he said the "stones would cry out" in praise of God, if man kept silent (Luke 19.41). To give the elements of the universe their God-given voice, I publish the following from Ted Naumann:

The Periodic Table

500 billion galaxies, each containing 100s of millions of solar systems is believed to have come from a minuscule "singularity". Did this singularity have an inherent periodic table within its mass?

Some believers in the "big bang" would say yes. If true, it would follow that each and every one of 107 potential atoms were already contained within that singularity. The quarks within the atomic nuclei would provide the attributes which would later determine what each potential atom will become.

Other big bang adherents may say that it is absurd to attribute any form of organized matter within the extremely dense mass of the singularity. Atomic structures would have to be formed during or after the big bang.

Either way, the existence of a periodic table poses some interesting conclusions.

1. All atoms are capable of combining with one another in order to form molecules which greatly exceed the usefulness of the individual atoms. For example, aluminum when combined with magnesium (which weighs only half as much) changes from a toothpaste tube material into an alloy useful for the wings of a large jetliner.

2. This ability of atoms to combine into useful molecules is hard to understand because their individual electrons are so active. Electrons revolve around their proton at more than 100 million billion times per second. It's tough enough to see how they avoid colliding with one another when circling their own nucleus, let alone when forced into combining with another atom (with its own electrons) to make a molecule. When several different atoms are combined into a molecule, the electrons of each atom often cross paths with electrons of other atoms and do it without colliding.

3. The hydrogen atom is unique. It is the most abundant element in the universe, yet a free hydrogen atom is almost never found on earth. It's the lightest of all elements (with only one electron), and it has combined naturally with oxygen (which has 8 electrons) to make H²O the most abundant molecule in the world, (covering 3/4 of the earth's surface) and one that is essential to all of life. The human body consists of 60% water. This third phenomenon brings us back to the periodic table. We are forced to ask one ultimate question, the answer to which will form a world view. But first, let's take a closer look at the periodic table.

The 107 natural elements are grouped by their characteristics into categories. Metals are an important category. They not only provide the material for most structures, but some like iron, have useful functions in the human body.

Iron (Fe) is the fourth most abundant element on earth. Significant quantities also have been found in meteorites. It is the main ingredient in steel and several hundred thousand tons of it are required to make one large naval vessel or cruise ship. Although a large number of them have gone to the bottom of the sea over the years; there is no danger of an iron shortage. It is obvious that iron ought to have been one of the most abundant elements in the periodic table.

Gases comprise another important category in the periodic table. The most important gas is oxygen (O) and it happens to be the most abundant element on earth. We have said that hydrogen gas is almost never found naturally on earth outside of the water molecule, yet there are twice as many hydrogen atoms than oxygen atoms in water. Oxygen makes up about half of everything on our planet and comprises 2/3 of the human body. Although It is continuously being consumed by people and animals, it is marvelously restored into the air by plants.

One of the atoms in the metal category is relatively rare and somehow there is little use for it anyway except for jewelry and dental work and, oh yes, money. The value of gold is almost entirely arbitrary since ceramics have become the material of choice for dental work. Our society could get along very well without it.

Aluminum is an extremely useful metallic atom. It doesn't corrode like iron and therefore is useful for weather sheathing, window frames and beer cans. When combined with magnesium, it becomes stronger than any other molecule of similar weight. Cars made of it become more fuel efficient, and airplanes of that alloy can carry heavier loads. As the most conductive of all metals, it has numerous electrical uses. Fortuitously the aluminum atom is the most abundant of all metallic elements and the third most abundant element of any kind. Over a million tons of it are produced in the United States every year and more is recycled.

Oil, coal and natural gas, those complex hydrocarbon compounds, have become essential for the survival of industrial nations. Highway pavements, massive amounts of fuels, scores of synthetics, all require it. Oil is abundant, but retrieving it is often limited by wars, environmentalists and the high cost of drilling. Large quantities are found in places where you would least expect it - under vast deserts, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of Alaska. It is plentiful all over the USA, South and Central America, etc. Yes, oil is abundant, but then it has to be.

The source of oil is a major speculation into which this article will not engage. We simply included it as another example of a type of matter which was made in great abundance apparently by dame fortune.

There aren't enough rubber trees in the world to supply the need for auto, plane and truck tires, flexible tubing, etc. But by polymerization of organic compounds, tires are being made from sugar cane and other sugar sources. There are more than 2 million carbon (organic) compounds useful for nylon, polyester, plastics, synthetic rubber, etc. in an almost unlimited supply because they are all made from renewable resources.

Silicon is the world's second most abundant atom. While it appears to be mere sand, it is enormously versatile and useful. It can be made into almost anything: building blocks, cement, semi-conductors, solar batteries, all kinds of glass, micro-electronics, photosensitive plates, and a new ceramic with mechanical strength ranging from 15,000 to 35,000 pounds per square inch and which is being used in the nose cones of spacecraft.

We said in paragraph 4 that the periodic table poses some interesting conclusions. Please note that the underlined conclusions in this article are made tongue-in-cheek. Thoughtful people will realize that the individual elements in the periodic table were made by a super intelligent being and that they were made in just the right quantities to enable an industrialized society to flourish.

Ted Naumann

--------------------------------

In Heaven we will be given the benefit of hindsight - to say nothing of more advanced intelligence than we now have on earth. Perhaps we will have to wait until we talk about it in Heaven to know for sure, but that does not stop Ted Naumann from giving us a fascinating twist on the "anthropic principle".

Does he know something the rest of us don't know?

I thank him for this extraordinary insight. I have not heard the periodic table of elements referred to in any other apologetic. Have any of you out there see this before?

Emails please to tednaumann@aol.com