In Part I of this apologetics series we opined that fanatic evolutionists give real science a black eye. Perspectives promoting the theory of evolution, as we reviewed, are mostly supported by pseudo-science and employ as much metaphysics as any other religion. Let’s further examine “science” that concerns itself with the questions of the beginnings…what is sometimes referred to as “historical science.”

Let’s first deal with the basic question of life. For now, let’s leave aside the unfathomable complexities of a human being comprised of trillions upon trillions of organized, specialized and interdependent cells. The probability alone that random events could have produced the complexity of a simple cell (one of the simplest self-sustaining and replicating life forms) is so unlikely that to believe this is possible is to rely completely on metaphysical beliefs. It would represent a religion even more primitive than ancient nature worshippers who nevertheless could at least recognize that there must be a higher power.

My undergraduate degree was in science with an emphasis in biology. I enjoyed learning about physics, biochemistry, genetics, and microbiology. In fact, I even enjoyed learning about invertebrate and vertebrate morphology. Not surprisingly, the prescribed textbooks for these latter courses were heavily laced with Evolutionism. As I recall at the time, it was presented by my biology professors as fact…not theory.

One of the most impactful topics I studied was Histology (the study of the structures of a single cell). Even the most primitive of cells (this itself being a presumptuous statement, as we cannot really be sure what is a primitive cell) with few enzymes, DNA and RNA strands, is so incredibly complex it is IMPOSSIBLE that it could originate from random processes. Why impossible?

No one, were they to dig up a Rolex watch from an archeological site, for instance, would think that it originated from random processes. A design would be evident. The Law of Entropy would otherwise have been overturned. Yet, the simplest enzyme (of which a minimum of 600 different kinds are required for a basic living cell) is countless more times as complex, specific and intricate.

The probability that just one of these enzymes could be formed by chance is 1 to 1047 give or take a few exponents. Evolutionists get picky about these calculations of Creationists and like to claim that these are in error. Usually, they propose a whole further list of imagined preconditions to their calculations, which are complete speculation for which there is NO evidence. (See http://unmaskingevolution.com for some methodologies and sample calculations.)

In any case, an enzyme, once randomly created, would then need to enter a stable, ordered configuration along with another 600-plus randomly produced enzymes for it to serve any useful function. In addition, consider that any molecule cannot be a mirror image of the molecule that is actually required. Otherwise, it would be deadly to a cell.

Then, what about the probability of a complete operating cell being formed out of a chance encounter of atoms and molecules? It is zero (as far as the human mind can comprehend). Multiplying zero probability by billions upon billions of years still produces a big zero. Keep in mind that were it possible (which it isn’t) that such a randomly-formed cell could occur in the first place, it would also have needed the mysterious spark of life. Right away it would need to begin functioning, consuming energy and dispelling waste. And not only that, this randomly formed cell would also have required an immense amount of programmed information in its RNA. If not, for example, how would it automatically start the process of mitosis (the complex reproduction of one cell into two)?

Considering the above-mentioned probabilities, what qualifies as religion…pseudo-science or Creationism? Surely logic and reasonability can be independent of religion, can they not? What perspective is more reasonable…which is more impossible than the other?

Evolution cannot be proven and Creationism cannot be disproven. Intellectual integrity would admit this logical conundrum and cause Evolutionists to come off their high horse with their baseless tactic of ridicule. It is not only Christians (who are Bible-believers) that reject Evolutionism. There are many agnostics and atheists who do as well. Why? They do not have enough faith to believe in Evolutionism.

Do Not Let Facts Get in the Way

It has already been known for many decades that impossible processes and probabilities are required to validate the theory of evolution as well as the random creation of life. Even many secular scientists (some who would consider themselves atheists) have admitted to the impossible probabilities of even one amino acid being formed by random chance (this the basic building block of all enzymes, RNA and DNA…all polypeptides).

Incidentally, there exist many bona fide scientists today who are Creationists. Unfortunately, admitting to such a belief apparently does not accelerate one’s career in academia. This black-balling also applies to any profession with a public profile — from politician to a global investment strategist. Evolutionists are not above persecuting anyone who disagrees with them. In a sense, they use similar tactics as ISIS (the extremist Islamist group). If you do not accept their beliefs at gunpoint, you will be academically beheaded…publicly discredited and baselessly ridiculed. There are countless such cases.

Creationist scientists do not protest providing the evidence for their views. There are some very excellent science journals available that adhere to Creationism! They provide fascinating and thoughtful “scientific” perspectives. (For example, see Journal of Creation or the website of the Creation Research Institute, for a large reserve of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Most readers will prefer somewhat lighter fare such as the Creation Magazine. I devour this bi-monthly publication from cover to cover. It is both fascinating and thought-provoking.)

But let’s change course here for a moment and review an unaligned perspective of a famous avowed atheist. According to the late Fred Hoyle (a famous astronomer and somewhat provocative scientist): “[T]here are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.”1

Do you have any notion of what an exponential power of 40,000 actually means? Really, it is not a concept that is comprehensible to the human. There wouldn’t be enough space in the known universe to hold all the failed molecules that supposedly would have resulted from the claimed experimental process of randomness. There are other estimates of these probabilities and these are heavily debated. However, for all intents, the scale of the improbability cannot be contested.

Yet, people persist in clinging onto the theory of random creation of life. The same Fred Hoyle made this comment: “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, […] that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” 2

Hoyle saw this persistence to believe in something that is impossible to be a “psychological” problem. He is on the right track, but not entirely. He himself was vulnerable to the same feats of human speculative illogic with his own theory of Panspermia. He proposed that earth’s life forms found their genesis from viruses that were spread by comets. This theory wouldn’t qualify for any better probabilities than we already reviewed.

The problem is not entirely psychological for scientists that study cosmology. It is a result of there being no option other than to accept the creation account. It would be a logical choice, but heaven forbid that there could be a Creator because that would mean there is a God. Yet, if Evolutionism is proven poppycock, then there really is only one systematic alternative, Creationism. And why not? There is not one shred of any scientific fact that disproves or invalidates Creationism and Evolutionists know this.

The Follies of Anti-Creationists

Large gaps and holes remain in evolutionary theories, forcing its advocates to become ever more inventive and hilarious. Faced with fossil evidence that bears out a world history of perhaps millions of dying species, they spin a false story of evolution…of a process of new life, advancement, and expanding chromosomal information. It is the exact opposite as any child (that has not yet been indoctrinated) would agree. It has been a history of death and lost genetic information, not new life. This would be obvious to anyone honestly looking at the evidence.

Today’s evolutionary theorists and “big bang” advocates regarding the beginning of the universe are already far past midnight. They have had their chance to find supporting evidence. With respect to the theory of evolution, for 150 years and more we have allowed them to continue digging for fossils; to continue to develop and systemize their theories. (Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his 1859 book, On the Origin of the Species.) Yet, they have not found any conclusive proofs for their theories.

They have not conclusively found the “missing links”; they have not shown nor proven that life can come from inanimate matter (denying the Law of Biogenesis that says life can only come from life); and they continue to refuse to accept the statistical impossibility of even the most primitive of cells forming from random forces, let alone even one protein or enzyme.

True science would acknowledge facts and evidence. Adaptations and differences in the “kinds” of living creatures wouldn’t be fraudulently passed off as evolution and scientists wouldn’t need to twist and turn their theories to fit their bias. This is one more indication that the evolution theory is not science but religion. It chooses a belief system that is directly in conflict with facts and reasonability. It also is in conflict with the Bible. (A future part of this Apologetics Series will deal with the provenance of the Bible.)

Incorruptibility and Infallibility of Science

Many Christians don’t have the courage to hold to Creationism. They are intimidated by the supposedly “expert” claims of modern science. They do not want to feel ostracized from the popular views of their culture.

The image that most people have of a “scientist” is someone wearing a white-frocked coat who has a Ph.D. in one or more specialities. They are therefore reverenced and held to have “high knowledge” in their field, far above the common person. Their theories and beliefs are therefore felt to be beyond reproach and above question. As such, whatever they say, write or speculate, must be a worthy insight or fact…something based upon evidence.

Indeed, scientists should have an expertise in their field of study and research. I genuinely appreciate the discoveries of gifted scientists. How could one reject wonderful new discoveries and inventions? That would be sheer foolishness. However, some realism and perspective is useful here. Scientists are humans.

This may be surprising to learn: Much activity under the rubric of science is corrupt. There is an increasing recognition of this fact in the media in recent years. An alarming number of researchers have been caught falsifying their data and results. There is tremendous pressure to produce results in order to win recognition and contracts. Science journals have been forced to tighten up peer review requirements for research articles. Surveys have revealed an alarmingly high rate of errors in experiment validation and in the supporting references in published papers.

This should not be surprising. This corruption parallels the trends witnessed in financial markets and most everywhere else. As with everything, money makes the world go around. It can bias perspectives and create bad incentives. The point here is that so-called scientists are fallible human beings like everyone else.

Back to so-called Christians. As it is, “Christian” is hardly a well-defined term. Anyone can declare themselves to be a Christian. There is no standards agency anywhere in the world that validates true Bible-believing Christians. As such, no one will ever be sued for brand fraud should they falsify any tenet or foundation of this faith. Many people are “cultural Christians” and do not hold a Biblical world view. Effectively, by denying the creation account, one has invalidated the entire Bible. Jesus Christ is therefore cast as a liar. (A future article in this Apologetics Series will deal with the question of Christ. Did he really exist or not? What makes him different from Siddhartha Gautama (See founder of Buddhism) or Muhammad?)

The New Testament records Christ referring to the “creation” as the beginning a number of times (Matthew 25:34, Mark 10:6, John 17:24). Mark records him saying specifically “[…] from the beginning, when God created the world, until now […]” (Mark 13:19). On none of these occasions does Jesus refute the Genesis creation account nor provide any clarifications or corrections. None were needed.

Anti-Creationism: The Answers of Evolutionism Found Wanting

Evolutionism is a religious belief system that also fails to satisfactorily answer the questions that hauntingly harbor in the souls of all mankind. Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What happens to “me” after I die? Is my existence meaningless? What thinking and intellectually-honest person will not admit to such thoughts?

The fact that these questions even exist is itself a refutation of the evolutionary theories of the origin of man. Concepts as are revealed by these questions do not and cannot “evolve” from primordial slime nor are these organically transmitted from one living organism to another.

The greatest atheistic thinkers (whether scientists or philosophers) have no answer to these “why” questions. “Why does the universe even go to the bother to exist?” questions the famous cosmological physicist, Stephen Hawking. The fact that all mankind has ingrained in them such concepts as “love” and “justice” alone proves naturalism cannot explain the inner thoughts and destinies of man. What human being does not feel wronged when some action is deemed to be “unfair”? These are ideas and concepts that evolution has no need nor means to develop.

Yet, our society taunts Creation believers as being “primitive” should they hold the view that the Theory of Evolution is not supported by evidence. Apparently, therefore, I am not a credible economist, money manager or global analyst. You therefore should not do any business with anyone of my ilk. That’s illogical. Let the evidence show for what it is.

Business comes and goes. What I rankle against is that we live in a society that arrogantly elevates its “consensus views” to a state of manifest superiority without the burden of proof, therefore condemning all bona-fide, Bible-believing Christians as simpletons. In public secular life, this is the prevailing and a priori view. Before examination, before discussion, before any reasoning on the part of the secularist “consensus” holder, if you are associated with a Bible-believing perspective, by the popular mores of our culture and the world you are therefore presumed to be primitive and stupid.

As I have shown, it couldn’t be more opposite. We should be contemptible of those who never think nor examine the evidence for what they believe, who uncritically gobble up the pabulum served up by misinformed societal consensus and who are frightened to hold an independent view.

Who is more courageous? Who is refusing to think honestly and without bias? Just who is willing to let the facts stand? Who cares about truth?

Thoughts to Ponder

Evolutionism is actually one of the world’s great terrorist religions. It has a deceptive agenda pushed by unethical religionists. To repeat, it is not science but pseudoscience and a blind faith in metaphysics.

It can only be so out of a spirit that refuses to acknowledge the existence of a loving, yet authoritative God. However, God is not mocked. The wonderful work of his hands — we who are […] fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14); mortal man whose days are numbered upon earth…who shall return unto dust…who is dependent upon the Creator for salvation and eternity. Who ridicules this Great God?

To this day, the secular “scientific” theories of beginnings and evolution are unproven. As scientists discover additional complexities of Creation, their theories become ever more contorted, imaginative, and ludicrous. Too many impossibilities and contradictions are encountered. To this day, no “scientist” has proven that something complex can autonomously arise from nothingness and randomness.

Sadly, as pointed out, facts and logical deduction aren’t the deciding factor. People who don’t want to believe in Creation and a personal God therefore must deny the facts. They will hold on to the unproven and the foolish.

We see that supposedly learned people don’t heed facts. Such foundational observations of science as the first and second laws of thermodynamics can also be ignored. Why? Because much of the thinking in this field of Evolutionism is driven by a priori adherence to atheism and/or a denial of Biblical Creation. And that is not all. For some reason, this branch of so-called scientific inquiry feels itself above the requirement of proofs and observation to elevate its beliefs as fact. They must do so dishonestly (and to be kind, ignorantly). It is tragic that most people do not see the folly.

Will you believe that there is a God? Will you believe the facts and the Truth? Do you believe that God created you? It is wonderful to ponder on the truth that God created you and knows you to be a special individual. You are known to him. He wants to have a relationship with us and wishes that none of His human creations would go lost (2 Peter 3:9). He therefore sent his son Jesus Christ, and promised that whosoever would believe that he was his Son, that they would have eternal life (John 3:16).

 

Notes:

1. F. Hoyle & C. Wickramasinghe (1981), “Evolution From Space”, J.M. Dent & Sons: London p. 24.

2. Ibid. pp. 141, 144, 130

I believe in Creationism. Why? Because upon analysis, it proves to be the most logical and reasonable position.

Apparently, that strikes many people as threatening and strange. They don’t understand how that can be. A global analyst and investment strategist believes in such malarkey? Can a blinkered person such as that make logical decisions and function in the fast-paced world of money?

You may be surprised at my answer.

I am a man of little faith. I simply do not have enough faith to believe any of the alternate arguments on such matters as the origin of life and the universe. I thrive on analysis, evidence and probability.

Some people (and big financial institutions that I will not name) are so unsettled by this “out of the closet” personal perspective that they refuse to do business with an investment management company that I founded.

Just how can I support my position? I will provide proofs. You can choose to consider them. But before I do, a bit of warning would only be fair. What I have discovered as a result of many discussions and debates over the years on this general topic is this: Facts don’t necessarily matter. What I am telling you is that people will deliberately choose to ignore evidence. People will invariably choose to believe what they want to believe. The facts can hang. For various reasons, they will doggedly cling to their a priori views on such issues as Evolutionism, the Big Bang Theory, and a myriad of subsidiary theories.

I recall discussions with people who I consider quite intelligent and for which I had (and continue to have) high respect. They had no valid counter arguments to the facts and probabilities that I laid out before them. Yet, they turned away…perhaps threatened and afraid of the implications that their world view was false. Even such intelligent people — puzzled as they were — deliberately chose to accept on faith the unexplainable and the impossibilities that apply to evolutionary theories. They, in effect, confirmed their religion.

The fact is that any world view or cosmological thesis requires an element of faith. Whether an atheist, agnostic, or believer in a higher power, or someone practicing a new age variant, a measure of faith will be needed. But how much? That’s the key question. Just what facts, proofs and disproofs can be marshaled in support of the reasonableness of a chosen “faith”?

Everyone is free to make their choices and to search out a satisfactory rationale. Please continue to do so as you continue to read this article. However, it is also true that the vast majority of people have never really examined what they believe and why. They have never tested their views against science and reasonable logic. Many choose to simply accept what they have been told and will believe the views and values of the collective zeitgeist of the times.

Such perspectives are not well-advised…certainly not in financial markets, I can tell you. To simply refuse to consider facts or to test one’s views is unwise. Any student of human behavior or an accomplished investment strategist will have only a cautious regard for the correctness of any consensus view. As is well documented, the popular perspectives of the majority or the pulls of crowd psychology will provide no more safety than a crowded strip of flypaper. Consensus views have been legendarily wrong and foolish as the behaviors and beliefs of crowds are rarely logical or sophisticated. It is amazing what crowds will believe!

(If you are interested in reading accounts of crazy financial manias and insane beliefs of crowds, I recommend the following two books. First, a classic written by Charles MacKay in 1841: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Also, Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises by Charles P. Kindleberger.)

In contrast, people who have the mental discipline to remain unfazed by the seemingly metaphysical pull of a delusional crowd and to remain calculated, clear-headed and unintimidated are the ones who do best in financial markets. Everyone else risks becoming a casualty should they hold the “wrong” majority view. The same is true in almost any other field – everywhere one will encounter the psychological pressure to concede to the consensus or popular view.

I have been a global investment analyst/executive working in “Wall Street” environs now well into the fourth decade. At the outset, I seemed to be progressing well. I completed a B.Sc. and a graduate degree in less than 4 years. I was the 2nd youngest in my MBA class; youngest Vice President at a major national investment brokerage firm; youngest partner in a powerful and influential investment bank; Director of Research for a major Wall Street firm at the tender age of 33, etc. I may have been stupid, but I hid it well.

In 1986 I was even named a top global analyst by Euromoney Magazine (my specialty at the time was industrial sectors). At a later date, I was a top-ranked portfolio strategist. During all this time in my profession, I practiced systematic, probabilistic, deductive, empirical and Aristotelian (logic) analysis. I liked to be a thinker. All that still applies…I hope. But how could that be? All that time I was a Creationist. Therefore, isn’t something awry?

Here I will throw down the gauntlet. To this day, I have yet to encounter anyone who could conclusively prove evolution as a fact, or for that matter, disprove Creationism. Not one. I offer an open invitation and will challenge anyone. I would even go so far as to defy anyone to prove Evolutionism to be a reasonable “theory.” The evidence clearly reveals it to be the most “primitive” of religions based on the allegations of “science” itself.

By necessity, in a short article series as this, I can only deal with a few main points. My main objectives are to urge the consideration of the “reasonability” of what is believed and to challenge people to think and consider the evidence for what they believe.

In the past, I have received a lot of correspondence offering only vehement and emotional opinions…threats and slurs. Some of them were cowardly as they didn’t have the courage to identify themselves. I expect this article series will attract many heated responses. But please note: I truly am a man of little faith. I will be looking for verifiable information, facts and sources, not unsubstantiated opinions. May the facts fall where they may.

The Proofs and Theories

Evolution remains a theory. That is a fact as you will see. Yet, disingenuously and dishonestly, many people (including those who consider themselves scientists) speak as if it is fact. No, evolution is a theory. In fact, as the evidence shows, it is a desperate theory as it does not rest on scientific facts. Many questions remain open that the evolutionists cannot answer — virtually millions upon millions of inconsistencies and impossibilities that have not found explanation or resolution. Evolutionists can only offer speculative theories and imaginings that have no evidential support. So, to say that Evolutionism is a scientific theory is even to disparage the legitimate historical discipline of science.

What do you believe? To begin, how many options are there in answering the questions of the origins of life on earth? Basically, there are only two systematic approaches (not counting various hybrids, for the moment). These are Naturalism and Creationism. If there were any additional options, I would consider them. I have proposed a third option — Comealongism. This is the escapist’s option, choosing to avoid any serious contemplation and hoping that another explanatory alternative will come along some day. Which of the two former cosmological views requires the least amount of faith? Which can be disproven by scientific observation? Which one requires a lack of reasonableness?

The Record of Science Versus God

I often hear that science and religion are incompatible. This is not true for a number of reasons and certainly not for the Judeo-Christian faiths. In the first place, this claim is ludicrous simply because of the fact that most of the founders of modern science were Christians. (This includes Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Bernoulli, Mendel, Pasteur…the list is long. Please review this article on Wikipedia for a more complete list.)

These were people who believed in the creation account in the Bible as it seemed obvious and sensible to them. They possessed a Biblical worldview. To them, their discoveries and inventions did not invalidate either the Bible or the existence of a Creator. These only served to magnify their reverence for God. Many of them took a deep interest in theology.

The tired debate that has been fought over the past two centuries, staging the Bible as if it would be in opposition to science, is entirely miscast. Yes, there have been many misguided people, theologians and religious institutions who took positions against natural science (for example that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun) out of ignorance or outright mendacity.

Nevertheless, there is not one statement in the Bible that misaligns with the physical sciences, apart from miracles. After all, that is the definition of a true miracle…something occurring that cannot be explained in the three-dimensional realm. The difference to be noted here between Evolutionism and Creationism is that it is only the latter that provides full disclosure on the roles of miracles and supernaturalism. Evolutionists require millions upon millions of miracles — not only individually or sequentially, but simultaneously and repeatedly — to make their theories work.

Then, how has science come to argue against a Deity? To answer this, we first must define what we mean by science. It goes without saying that it covers a wide arena of inquiry. Some of it is more of an observational type. It studies natural processes or things and documents them as they are. Other science is applied science. It builds on that which is observed and may find other applications for the natural laws and phenomena that it discovers. Then, some of science concerns itself with explaining the “whys” and “wherefores” of what is observed. Here it ventures into the field of theory.

A hypothesis may align with what is observed and can sometimes be successfully used to deduce other outcomes or to find new applications. However a hypothesis or a theory is not the same as fact. This is the accepted foundation of scientific process. Theory is not fact. Integrity and intellectual honesty require that disclaimers are made, especially so when involving speculative or philosophical views.

A very different pursuit under the name of “science” is the exploration of things and processes of the distant past — back to the beginnings of the universe and the origins of all things. Here, observations cannot be made in real time. Scientist were not around thousands (or as it may be claimed) millions of years ago when things supposedly began. Questions relating to how all things began needed to be theorized should one wish to test a naturalistic approach. Such questions as how the universe came about and how life came to earth are the subjects of this branch of study. No harm there. However, somewhere along the line this field of research was uniquely co-opted by a religion…a metaphysical pseudoscience.

What is the difference between real science and pseudoscience? Science depends on evidence and testing. Says Phillip Johnson, “Scientific methodology exists wherever theories are subjected to rigorous empirical testing, and it is absent wherever the practice is to protect a theory rather than to test it.”i

Interestingly, pseudoscience didn’t co-opt other fields of study to the same extent…i.e. study of arts, literature or language. That said, those studying the origins of language can have the same tendency to ignore evidence just because it doesn’t fit their a priori theory. For instance, the entire objective of a book written by Guy Deutscherii on the origins of languages was to try to explain why the evidence didn’t line up with the theory of evolution. The problem was that evidence showed that the first languages to appear in the historical record were sophisticated and complex (far more so than English). The evolutionist was expecting language to evolve from simple forms to the more sophisticated. The evidence was exactly opposite, therefore requiring his tortured and contorted explanations. Karl Popper’s observation is apropos: “The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right.”iii

A priori biases as described, as well as the incredibly speculative musings (to the point of ludicrousness) by so-called scientists recklessly supporting evolutionism, argue that science should have separated itself from this field of inquiry long ago. Why? As mentioned, it is a pseudoscience and because fanatic evolutionists give real science a black eye. Desperately clinging to their religion, they shamefully steal reputational legitimacy and credibility from “real science.” Today, the meaning of the word “science” has been completely changed. It is no longer the science (in the historical sense) of its founders. The word today means “anything ex-God.”

Science is important and useful. The benefits to mankind of its understandings and inventions are beyond measure. That said, it must also be recognized that such science has never been able to step outside the bounds of the physical or the observable (i.e. outside the Creation). It cannot be used to prove the non-existence of God nor to explain anything that could be outside of Creation. This would be impossible.

 

Notes:

i. Phillip Johnson, (1991), Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, pg. 148.

ii. Guy Deutscher (2005), The Unfolding of Language, Henry Holt and Company, New York.

iii. Karl Popper (1934), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg. 281.