Some years ago in 1989, political scientist Francis Fukuyama published an essay entitled The End of History. It had a large impact. He had concluded that democracy and free market capitalism had won the world’s ideological and political economic debates. The correctness of this new human plateau was so self-evident and so widely endorsed, that no more debate or theoretical advancement was possible. Therefore, the end of history.

Of course, Mr. Fukuyama will have been guilty of hyperbole. Although his thesis triggered thought-provoking perspectives, it today is clear that no such common agreement exists (i.e., consider the actions of countries such as Russia, China, Arab nations and others).

We want to use a bit of hyperbole to make another thought-provoking claim: The world could be facing the End of Technology.

What do we mean by this?

There may be no more new major technological innovations that will either enable or change the course of mankind and its beliefs.

Certainly, there can be no doubt that researchers and laboratories will continue in their work. The patent offices of the world will continue to grant them by the hundreds of thousands every year. Our societies will continue to be inundated by innovative and novel new consumer products, services, apps and service platforms. Scientists can be expected to discover new things about the universe and the natural sciences.

However, the key question is this: Will any of these inventions “radically” change humanity in its beliefs, mental health and earthly confidence? To humanists, this question will surely seem as blasphemy seen from their religious belief system. How could it not be possible that humanity will continue to advance and evolve … to perhaps extend the lifespan of human beings to 150 years and more … to even reach the point of singularity, where human biology is merged with technology and mankind “evolves” to a form that does not even require a physical body.

Others see the developments of new technology as being potentially worrisome. The World Economic Forum, in its recent Global Risks 2015 report, specifically cites emerging biotechnologies as a major risk to be monitored. It says: “Emerging technologies hold great and unprecedented opportunities […]. A range of currently emerging technologies could have […] profound implications for mankind’s future […].”

The WEF goes on to say: “The establishment of new fundamental capabilities, as is happening for example with synthetic biology and artificial intelligence, is especially associated with risks that cannot be fully assessed in the laboratory. Once the genie is out of the bottle, the possibility exists of undesirable applications or effects that could not be anticipated at the time of invention. Some of these risks could be existential—that is, endangering the future of human life.”

Summing up WEF’s perspective, technology could eventually wipe out mankind if there are not sufficient guidelines. In other words, technology could be the end of mankind. Obviously, humanist philosophers themselves remain divided in their views. Some are optimistic, viewing technology as the enabler of human evolution; others the end of human life on earth. We see here that there is no consensus about the future roles of technology.

However, a Biblical worldview and a literal understanding of prophecy lead us to conclude that we indeed are near the end of any new technologies being required to fulfill the Bible’s pre-millennial prophecies. From that point of view, the End of Technology may already be in sight. Just what was the last major technology that needed to be in place?

What Has Technology Done for You Lately?

Without a doubt, the world has experienced a unique period of technological development over the last 150 to 200 years or so. In this small sliver of time, seen from the cosmological timeline of the earthbound human, an explosion of change took place. No one can deny that a massive acceleration occurred in virtually every field and faculty. Science, technology, as well as the Reformation, were at its root.

However, it is debatable whether the pace of change with respect to foundational new discoveries is beginning to fizzle out. For example, the speed of travel for mankind has not advanced in 5 decades. The combustion engine, which all of a sudden made short work of the buggy whip at the turn of the 20th century, is no longer making vehicles go faster. The speed of automobiles has remained the same for many decades (perhaps with the exception of travel on Los Angeles freeways, with its many traffic jams).

Bacterial infections were conquered through the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics. Believe it or not, penicillin was only made available to a mass market as late as the early 1940s. The impact of antibiotics appears to be already past its zenith of conquering the germ. Also, global telecommunications is near its maximum practical impact (though becoming cheaper). Our long-distance conversations can hardly increase. Very likely, advances in agricultural and industrial productivity are slowing … and so on.

We ask this question: Just what technologies must yet emerge so that pre-millennial Bible prophecy can be fulfilled? Nuclear power sufficient to blow up the entire habitations of mankind already exists. Globalism and a global community of mankind already exist, attributable in part to telecommunications technologies. Flight was invented a little more than a century ago (i.e., fulfilling Isaiah 60:8). What is missing?

Prophecy and Technology

Timothy tells us: “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves […] of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1, 4).

According to Paul, the world will be typified by people who are centered upon themselves … pursuing their individual wants. They love themselves uppermost. They therefore will have fallen into a trap. Only God can love us fully and perfectly. People who are lured to the notion that they can love themselves better than God, face unhappiness. No doubt, this trend is linked to the rapid rise of depression—what the World Health Organization has observed to be an epidemic. Sadly, it is seen as a disease, not at all as a spiritual malady.

At the same time that selfishness and narcissism become rampant, the world becomes more bewildering and anxiety-filled. “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth” (Luke 21:34-35).

So, any technology that serves to enable the “love of self”; and to spread information that leads to the magnification of the “anxieties of life”; and centralizes influence and personal monitoring, therefore, is likely to play a prophecy-enabling role.

The Selfie and the Smartphone

Our inquiry on this topic (End of Technology) and several recent developments prompt us to again comment on the phenomena of the smartphone and to alert of its significance. Firstly, the accelerating sales trend of these devices has been eye-catching. Secondly, a high profile article published by the Economist magazine (“Planet of the Phones,” March 3, 2015) outlines this incredible boom and ponders its implications. And, thirdly, the value of Apple Corporation, the maker of i-Phones (the best-selling smartphones in the world), has been rapidly appreciating.

Recently, the stock market valued the Apple company at over $700 billion. Some investment analysts speculate that it is likely to become the first company in history to be valued at more than one trillion (USD). Apple is the most profitable large company in existence on the planet today. Its cash hoard totaled $178 billion at its recent quarter-end.

Imagine that Apple’s biggest challenge is to figure out what to do with its cash hoard. Its cash holdings amount to greater than 10% of all corporate cash holdings in the U.S., and continue to pile up at the rate of $50 billion per year.

The advances of technology are usually driven by money. But that is an entirely different topic.

Back to the Smartphone. Many people enjoy its conveniences; few realize its revolutionizing impact. It has proven to be the fastest adopted technology of all time. As the Economist puts it, “They have become the fastest-selling gadgets in history.”

The Last Technology—the Smartphone

In an earlier column series (“12 Endtime Fuses Burning Alight”), we ventured the opinion that “[…] technology has at least one more role to play in the prophetic timeline of the world. […] The most pivotal technological developments over the past several decades, as everyone will know, have been the internet and the personal cell phone. […] Crucially, these two developments have lately converged into one leading edge—the smart phone.”

That was the significant development—the merging of the cell phone with a web-enabling interconnection.

Why was this significant? This merging opens the gateway to the ultimate “dotage upon the individual” (the self), though within a centrally controlled, global nexus of connections. The smartphone is a personal device. And thus, it becomes the direct channel between the world and the individual’s personal world. The technology coming into existence allows a mass personalization through a complete monitoring of your needs, likes and identifications.

A technology therefore is in process which will know you personally. It controls the information flow to you, and therefore also has the capability of monopolizing the availability of information.

Quoting the Economist article further, “Today about half the adult population owns a smartphone; by 2020, 80% will. Smartphones have also penetrated every aspect of daily life. The average American is buried in one for over two hours every day. […] The phone takes the processing power of yesterday’s supercomputers—even the most basic model has access to more number-crunching capacity than NASA had when it put men on the Moon in 1969—and applies it to ordinary human interactions. […] There are 2 billion people around the world using smartphones that have an internet connection and a touchscreen or something similar as an interface. By the end of the decade that number looks set to double to just over 4 billion.”

Points to Ponder

The Smartphone is transforming our world. It will have an enormous impact. For example, says the Economist: “Teenagers, whose time on phones dwarfs that of their elders, are developing a social life in which face-to-face and digital forms of contact are used interchangeably and often simultaneously.” The younger generation is growing up with an entirely different sense of relationship. They are becoming self-centered, interconnected islands. Everyone is on a mini-stage of their own to the entire world—the Facebook page or some other social medium.

New studies are revealing other concerns: According to a study conducted by the University of Waterloo,1 use of new communication technologies such as the Smartphone is causing a loss in thinking skills. Attention spans are becoming shorter and intellectual laziness is being observed.

Quoting from the survey, “[…] involving 660 participants, the researchers examined various measures including cognitive style ranging from intuitive to analytical, plus verbal and numeracy skills. Then they looked at the participants’ smartphone habits. The study, from researchers at the University of Waterloo and published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, suggests that smartphone users who are intuitive thinkers […] frequently use their device’s search engine rather than their own brainpower. Smartphones allow them to be even lazier than they would otherwise be.” According to Gordon Pennycock, a co-lead of the study, research provides support for an association between heavy smartphone use and lowered intelligence.

The world makes its choices. Mankind can use its technologies for good or bad. However, technology uniquely is a double-edged sword. The conveniences it offers all come with a price … a vulnerability of some kind. It may be a dependence, a loss of independence and self-reliance, or a rising vulnerability to widening controls and monitoring. Technology (and knowledge of true science, for that matter) always moves forward. Its advances do not reverse.

For the Christian, the progression of science and technology presents additional challenges. While on the one hand, enjoying the conveniences that technologies offer, we must be alert to the increasing vulnerabilities. Here, these also may take the form of temptations. And, we must not lose an attitude of reliance upon God.

In the case of the advance of the world-capturing Smartphone and other technologies, we see the world chooses to become increasingly smug and proud. Worldliness and ungodliness find ever bigger and more effective pulpits and distribution channels. The ‘self’ becomes more venerated … and destructive. Who can stand firm?

Says the Psalmist: “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. They are brought to their knees and fall, but we rise up and stand firm” (Psalm 20:7-8).

The New Testament several times encourages one to stand firm. Paul advises believers, “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love” (1 Corinthians 16:13-14).

The flock is also encouraged that God helps in this task; for, “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

“[…] Stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near” (James 5:8).

1 Accessed March 7, 2015: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150305110546.htm

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