And then was there thought for a long time to be a giant impact upon the Earth that resulted in the moon. (1) Or later, perhaps not. (2) Indeed, the Earth was in fact very different from today. There were no oceans and no oxygen. Then was the Earth bombarded by left over planetoids and other early material. The left-over heat and bombardment caused the planet to be fully molten. During this stage, the ‘iron catastrophe,” did cause the heavier elements to sink, whereas the lighter elements did float. Although the early atmosphere would have been composed of hydrogen and helium, the winds of the sun and the heat of the Earth, would cause this to be taken away. And then as the radius of the Earth did increase, temperatures did plummet. And as the crust did solidify and form, so did the atmosphere. Between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago, did the Earth undergo a heavy bombardment of asteroids providing water, which condensed into clouds. And then did life begin to originate… (Continued in Part VI).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

(2) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/older_earth_020828.html

Some commentators read my general overviews, and they assume that I don’t know the basic cosmological views, such as the cosmological view of the starlight and time problem. However, I have been reading about cosmology for the last 16 years or so, and I am quite acquainted with how the views on cosmology “have evolved.”

Some commentators note different arguments that have been made from cosmology on the starlight and time problem. I’m well aware of these arguments, and they always make reference to things unmeasurable (e.g., dark energy and an initial inflation of the universe at a speed faster than the speed of light). For anyone who has followed cosmology closely, this theory was used to explain things that were completely unpredicted by previous cosmological theories (such as the apparent accelerated expansion of the universe). Completely imaginary concepts as Dark Energy are invoked to explain this problem. Additionally, commentators assert that nobody but traditional scientists have been trying to research this problem. That is a blatantly false assertion, as creation scientists have also been researching the problem and providing possible explanations. For each viewpoint, I must admit, there is nothing more than speculation, but there are possible explanations from each point of view.

In Part II, I laid out an overview of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and in Part III, I began addressing some of the controversy with YEC. I will continue addressing the controversy and potential problems with YEC in this post.

Radiocarbon Dating

Radiocarbon dating is used for dating the age of fossils or formerly living matter (organic matter) up to 60,000 years old. (1) This method of dating poses an apparent problem for YEC, because dates obtained from Carbon 14 dating are frequently greater than the 6,000 year-old age as purported to a literal biblical interpretation. The basic assumptions of Carbon 14 dating are challenged by YEC proponents. Namely, that the initial amount of Carbon 14 in organic materials can be known, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere was much higher before the global flood. (2)

Star Light and Time

If you look up into the sky at night you will see stars. The speed of light in a vacuum is a known rate (186,282 miles/second). So, the distance that light travels in a year is known (5,878,625,373,183 miles), and the distance to stars and distant galaxies has been estimated. The distance to the most distant objects in the universe is estimated in billions of light years. So, the assumption is that the light from these objects originated billions of years ago. YEC proponents do not question the distance to these stars and galaxies.

One argument is,

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. (3)

However, it is also noted that,

It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

Again, YEC proponents challenge uniformitarian views. Although some creation scientists challenge the speed of light, others approach the challenge with respect to time.

Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. (3)

And then there is the time zone argument,

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility. (3)

Challenging the assumptions of naturalism is also an argument. It states that although God sustains the universe in a certain way presently, this tells us nothing about how He actually created things in the beginning.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. (3)

Cosmology is also examined, and it is noted that there is a star light and time problem with current cosmological theories as well. This perspective forces a detente between the creationist view and the naturalist view by asserting that both perspectives are faced with the same basic problem.

… since the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. (3)

The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away. Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem. So the notion is that both the creationist viewpoint and naturalist viewpoint both have problems with star light and time. The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

(3) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

A potential cosmological resolution to the star light and time problem is presented in the book, Starlight and Time.

In Part II, I gave a basic summary of the view of Young Earth Creationism. In this section, I’ll discuss some of the controversies.

Catastrophe versus Uniformitarianism

That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred (geological changes, formation of strata layers, formation of fossils, and so forth). The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.

Plate Tectonics

After naturalistic scientists finally came to a point of resolution about plate tectonics, it became possible to measure the speed of continental drift (.5 to 6 inches per year). (1) And by the uniformitarian view of geology, the separation of the continents from the original single land mass was estimated to have taken 1 billion years. (2) Evidence for the YEC perspective is presented at Answers in Genesis, and computer models related to the catastrophic hypothesis have been developed. (1)

According to AIG,

… a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.¹⁰ And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.¹¹

Radiometric Dating

The uniformitarian view receives support from examining evidence pertaining to the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Radiometric dating is used in the dating of the formation of igneous rocks.

Which are defined as,

formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). (3)

So, this type of dating is confined to only certain types of rocks.

Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone. (4)

Different elements are seen to have different “half lives.” Radioactive elements decay into other elements that is extremely consistent in current observations of radioactive decay. YEC challenges the assumptions of the rate of radioactive decay and provides support for their position that the Earth is young (thousands of years) instead of old (billions of years). (5) Additional evidence is provided in book and DVD form. (6) (7)

The RATE group has been criticized by naturalists. ( 8 )

This post is getting rather long, so I will continue in Part IV.

(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

(3). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous

(4). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

(5). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

(6). Thousands not Billions

(7). Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)

(8). http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

]]> http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/on-christian-views-of-creationism%e2%80%93part-iii-continued-young-earth-creationism/feed/ 4 The Country Shrink http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/on-christian-views-of-creationism-part-ii-young-earth-creationism/ http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/on-christian-views-of-creationism-part-ii-young-earth-creationism/#comments Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:12:42 +0000 thecountryshrink http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/?p=78 ]]>

This view of creationism rests on a literal interpretation of the Bible. The notion is that the Earth was created 6000-10000 years ago. The dating is based on the genealogy listed in the chapter Numbers in the Bible. This perspective says that uniformitarian interpretations of geology and cosmology are incorrect or misinterpreted. They don’t deny the operation of microevolutionary principles (natural selection) operate in the world and use this to account for the wide ranging variation in the “kinds” of life (look at the variation in dogs for example).

The Fall of Man

The fall of man is given a prominent place in this point of view. Before the fall creation was perfect. There was no death (even among the animals). There was no suffering. There was no disease. And living things (animals and humans) were vegetarian. After Adam and Eve ate from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” God proclaimed that they would die and were banished from the garden.

From this view, all of creation in the world fell. Not just human beings. Death came into the world.

The Great Flood

Genesis Chapter 6 (NASB)

⁵ Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

⁶ The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

⁷ The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

….

16 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

…. Chapter 7

⁴ For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land ⁾every living thing that I have made.”

^{5 )}Noah did according to all that the LORD had commanded him.

….

¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

¹² The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

….

¹⁹ The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

²⁰ The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

^{21 )}All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

²²of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Evidence for the global flood is taken from hundreds of legends across all continents. (1)  The uniformitarian view, that rock layers were laid down over millions of years is seen as false, and the notion that the rock strata layers were laid down in a cataclysmic event (the flood) are seen as true.  (2)  The fact that different types of animals are seen in different strata layers is interpreted as a natural sorting process.  The more intelligent animals would run away from the flood waters, and would thus end up in the higher layers of the strata.

I’ll write more about potential problems with this viewpoint and possible answers to these problems in Part III.  The notion with this point of view is that through sin, came death.  Death is viewed as a bad thing and is the result of the original sin of Adam and Eve.  This is contrasted with the view of Darwinism, which is through death comes life.  This viewpoint explains a great many things (disease, suffering, death, social ills, and so forth), that are seen as very negative things by people on the Earth currently.

However, there are a number of problems with this viewpoint, which I will discuss in Part III.  But, if you begin with the assumption of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, all you need to provide is one possible explanation for how things could have occurred.  Personally, I lean a bit more towards this viewpoint than OEC, because of it’s explanatory power and consistency with the Bible.  But, for Christians, we need to keep in mind the most important aspect of the theology.  And that is Christ paid the price for our sins and on the day of judgment, the Father will look at us and see Christ.

My own point of view, is that the universe may have been needed to be created in the exact way that it was in order to allow for life to exist on Earth.  As Adam and Eve were created with the appearance of age, the universe was likely created similarly.  When you go to watch a movie, it has a starting point.  The assumption is that things happened before the movie started.  If you were to look at Adam and Eve as fully grown humans, you might infer that they had existed for 20 or 30 years and been born of a woman as we know always happens now.  However, the Bible asserts otherwise.  I think the same thing may apply when we look at the universe and its apparent age.  But again, my faith does not rest on these notions, and there may be superior explanations that are biblically consistent.

(1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Hallmarks of Design

I’ve written before about how things that are designed exhibit function or specific complexity.  I’ll give a definition in a bit more detail here.

Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. (1)

Teleology

Proponents of intelligent design theory often invoke the notion of teleology.  What is teleology?

…. is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. (2)

Irreducible Complexity (IC)

Charles Darwin specified one aspect of his theory that would allow for falsifiability.  Falsifiability is thought to be an essential aspect of a scientific theory.  Darwin wrote:

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. But I can find out no such case. (3)

Although Darwin at least made an attempt to allow for the falsifiability of modern evolutionary theory, modern evolutionists have rejected any arguments that have been made in terms of irreducible complexity. 

Two major proponents of intelligent design theory have defined IC in these ways:

^{The term “irreducible complexity” was originally defined by Behe as:}

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (<emDarwin’s Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition) ….

A second definition given by Behe (his “evolutionary definition”) is as follows:

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

(4)

Evolutionists today dismiss the idea outright.  To my knowledge, they don’t even present a way that evolution can be falsified.  Although there are a number of credible arguments made for irreducible complexity, there are of course counterarguments for each.  This points to the fact that naturalistic evolution has no clear way of being falsified.  For example, all an object would have to do to falsify the law of gravity, is to fall upward once!  But the fact that the argument continues shows that naturalistic evolution has no true basis for falsifiability.

In the everyday practice of research on evolution, the assumption is that naturalistic evolution is true, because a majority of scientists agree.  A mere agreement among scientists as evidence violates the philosophical assumptions of science.  Research on evolution routinely employs research designs that do not allow for causal conclusions (that the results found imply a cause and effect relationship), but that does not stop evolutionary biologists from inferring causality nonetheless.

The type of research that allows for inferences about causal relationships is an experimental design.  Evolutionists argue that, “How do you propose we construct a multi-billion year research design?”  And I reply that if your theory requires a multi-billion year research design, it’s not much of a scientific theory.

(1) Lumsden, Richard, 1995, quoted by Alters, Brian J., 1995, A content analysis of the Institute for Creation Research’s Institute on Scientific Creationism. Creation/Evolution 15(2): 1-15.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

(3) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

The Christian Scribbler has written an interesting post on the macro level of irreducible complexity.  Kliska writes:

I’m in the middle of a book titled: In Six Days; Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Ashton, 2000).  All the chapters (which are composed by the different scientists giving their reasons) have been informative and interesting, but one so far really stood out to me.

Read the full post here. 

Evolution…hasn’t brought us to a place where we can stop hating, fighting, warring and murdering each other. In fact, in viewing the twentieth century, evolution has only added to our tendencies to be selfish and brutal…(Unknown)

After fifty eight years of living, I have come to a major conclusion about people: if there’s one thing, in dealing with the human nature, that is for certain, it is nothing, in dealing with the human nature, is for certain. As I’ve looked back and considered some of my choices and actions, over the years, I have often found myself overtaken with despair. It seems that many times I had no sense of responsibility towards others. Everything seemed to be about me, and others were there merely to help facilitate my needs and desires. I realize-now-that some of my choices and actions-then-were made under the influence of immaturity and naiveté, as well as alcohol and drugs, but many, as I grew older, were due solely to my own self-centered arrogance. It hasn’t always been pleasant, but this self-introspection has, in many ways, shed much light on who I was then and now, or as Socrates stated, the unexamined life is not worth living.

Over the years, I have come to understand that I’m not alone when it comes to self-centered, human arrogance. This seems to be a common condition among supposedly mature human beings, and the largest portion of us, over the last century, in particular, have evidently been incapable of considering how our self-absorbed choices and subsequent actions have affected others and the world. It appears that we have, in a selfish and arrogant way, set out to recreate our world and without any consideration for the consequences.

Most societies, throughout history, have looked at the individual as merely the means to an end, and this still remains true. Hatred, bigotry, slavery, murder and war are not new concepts, needless to say. The difference between these older societies and ours however, is in their reasons for hating and warring. The arrogant nature of humanity, as opposed to the love of money, has always been at the root of all evil. Humans, like wolves, run in packs, or “Birds of a feather, flock together.” Humans, as with birds, flock together for acceptance, companionship, breeding, security and survival. Security and survival, in particular, have been the driving force behind hatred, bigotry and war throughout history, because humans tend to mistrust anyone who is different than themselves and viewed as a threat. In the past, one society’s conquest of another’s territory was, most often, driven by fear, security and survival.

Today, we have supposedly become more sophisticated when it comes to our reasons for hatred and war, and this is primarily due to our recently, in comparison to all time, acquired, scientific knowledge. Although security and survival are still at the root of our fear, hatred and aggression towards others, we have found new and better excuses for hating and dehumanizing while, at the same time, professing to be “moral.”

Over the past one-hundred and fifty years, we have come to embrace a new and man-made god. Evolution has successfully manipulated humanity into replacing God and His creation with an unproven, materialistic (self-absorbed) and dehumanizing theory. The Frankenstein-like, bastard child of evolution is eugenics, which was conceived by Charles Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton. Mr. Galton, had come to believe that his half-cousin’s unsubstantiated theory was absolute fact, which had led him to the warped conclusion that protecting the weak in society was a hindrance to “natural selection.” As with inbred human beings, inbred human theories are, quite often, disfigured, maladjusted and cognitively imbalanced.

In human societies, Galton noticed, evolution is thwarted. Whereas natural selection requires that the weak die early, leaving few, if any, children, …society actually protects the poor and the sickly. This compassion for the weak works against evolution and creates a “reversion towards mediocrity.” Galton, and many others at that time, believed that, by practicing selective breeding, human societies could weed out those who were prone to illness or other undesirable traits, thus putting evolution back on track. After all, who wouldn’t want an improved genetic pool? (Article from The Center for a Just Society, 10/2/06)

As it would turn out, Mr. Galton’s warped and hasty conclusion, which had been based on his cousin’s even more unsubstantiated, warped and hasty theory, would set the stage, in the twentieth century, for societal and moral anarchy: evolution and Mr. Galton’s premise, “Eugenics,” were at least two catalysts for brutal, psychological-experimentation, discrimination, increased hatred between the races, ethnic cleansing, two world-wars and nightmarish atrocities.

The modern advocate of eugenics, as with the modern evolutionist and Darwin‘s theory, has revised Mr. Galton’s original conception by dividing and labeling it, “Negative“ and “Positive” Eugenics. This, of course, had to be done in order to explain away the havoc, which had been wreaked on the world by the original. According to the modern advocate of eugenics, lobotomies, forced sterilization, surgical experimentation on humans, ethnic cleansing and the holocaust could all be rationalized simply by labeling the first model of eugenics as, “Negative.” “Positive” eugenics is alive and well-today-and can be found at work in fertility clinics and medical labs: fertilization techniques, frozen embryos, surrogate mothers, cloning and selective breeding, or it‘s euphemism, “Minimizing genetic diversity,” are all part of the modern, or “positive,” eugenics movement.

When modern, material scientists threw God out of the human equation, sometime during the last century and a half, they also threw out what separates us from the rest of creation and, in particular, animals. Carnivorous animals seek out and kill the weak and sickly without hesitation, because it’s in their nature to do so. This not only keeps the hunters and their offspring alive and flourishing, but it also helps the hunted, since the weak and sickly are removed and no longer a burden. This is also an act of mercy, since an old, sickly and weak elk, for instance, may have suffered for days and weeks if it hadn’t been killed and eaten by a predator. I believe this is nature’s process for animals, which exists because of God, but how did we come to the conclusion that this process, in any real way, applies to us? Evolutionists and the advocates of eugenics would have us believe we’re not much different, in an evolutionary sense, from animals and therefore, still subject to the same “natural” laws. They may not be suggesting we go out and murder weak and sickly human beings, or at least, not yet, but they are stating-emphatically-that the “natural process” still exists and therefore, should have its unimpeded way with us.

Evolutionists and the eugenic’s advocate hold to this weak, scientific premise as truth, and yet they have no substantial, empirical evidence to support their claim. As I’ve asked many times, where are the thousands or perhaps, millions of skeletal remains for Australopithecus, Homo-erectus, Peking man, as well as the other evolutionary stages of man? Why are there still chimpanzees if they truly evolved into homo-sapiens-sapiens? Like the typical politician, the evolutionist/eugenicist, when faced with questions they can’t or won’t answer, will simply respond with arrogant and evasive, scientific jargon and excuses. They refuse to address these aforementioned, evolutionary anomalies in a truthful manner, simply because they can’t produce the evidence requested and look down their supposedly brilliant noses at anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Where can I find the sanctity or preciousness of human life in these two, unsubstantiated, scientific theories? If human beings are still evolving, then the killing of others may simply be the design of the “natural process?” If a mentally or physically-handicapped human being is suffering, as well as “thwarting“ the “natural process,” then shouldn’t it be “natural,” or humane, to put them out of their misery? On the other hand, if human life is precious, then how can we believe mentally or physically, weak human beings are “thwarting” the “natural process?” If human life is truly precious to us, then how can we trust any scientific theory that devalues life, simply because some humans can’t meet its twisted requirements for “survival?“ What is the implication-here-for human beings who are supposedly “thwarting” the “natural process?” Are these “select” human beings merely examples used to support a theory, or are they the target of something much more insidious? We can call manure a rose, but it still comes from the backside of a cow and smells bad. We can call phrases such as, “Thwarting the natural process” and “Creating a reversion towards mediocrity” an attempt to improve life for all mankind, but it still has the stench of Hitler, Nazism and the holocaust. When we dehumanize other people, in the least way, we open-wide-the door to fear, hatred, bigotry and atrocities. Why can’t we see this? Haven’t we learned anything from human history, in particular, the last one-hundred years? Can’t we remember the Nazi atrocities: brutal, scientific, psychological and medical experimentation on supposedly inferior types of human beings and all in the name of “purifying the race?”

If these two theories are what we truly believe, then we are hypocrites to claim there is such a thing as morality. These two theories are diametrically opposed to morality. If we’re truly moral beings, then evolution and eugenics should be appalling to us. We should be outraged at the notion that interference with the “natural selection,” then requires the need for scientific manipulation and control of human reproduction. The “negative” form of eugenics, which spawned two, world wars and the murder of millions of innocent lives, has supposedly been done away with, but has it really? Seeking to rebuild the human race through “minimizing genetic diversity,” or “positive“ eugenics, is no different, in reality, from Hitler’s desire for a super-human race.

With the development of prenatal genetic diagnosis, the drive toward eugenics has returned with a vengeance. Americans may heartily cheer participants in the Special Olympics, but we abort some 90 percent of all gestating infants diagnosed with genetic disabilities such as DS, dwarfism, and spina bifida.

This is precisely the purpose of testing, many will say. But others see that attitude as a denial of universal human equality. Moreover, many worry that parents of genetically disabled children are nudged toward the abortion option… Indeed, parents of babies diagnosed prenatally with DS reported in the study mentioned above that 23 percent of the physicians or genetics counselors they spoke with either “emphasized the negative” aspects of parenting such children or “urged” parents to choose abortion. (Wesley J. Smith, 03/31/2008, Volume 013, Issue 28)

Scientifically speaking, minimizing genetic diversity might lead to evolutionary problems in the future…We may have already cut down the normal sort of natural selection that acts on wild animals by allowing the slow, the old and the weak to stay alive when they would have died in the wild…But in a world with very little genetic diversity, natural selection might indeed be stopped altogether, and thus only artificial evolution (through technology) would be able to allow us humans to cope with a changing environment…(Modern Eugenics: Designer Children, Author unknown)

Does anyone, besides me, hear the confused logic in the above quote? We may have already cut down the normal sort of natural selection… Does this mean that the “normal,” or original, “natural selection,” if it still exists, is dependant on humanity for survival? If humanity came into existence through the “normal sort” of “natural selection,“ then why would we doubt its ability to survive? Does this mean the theory that expounds “the survival of the fittest“ can’t pass its own test? How could humanity have “cut down,” or… “thwarted” the “natural process,” in a “natural” way, when we were supposedly created by it? How can a created thing “cut down,” or destroy, its creator? I never learned or even heard about the “normal sort” of “natural selection” in college. When was this weak rationalization for the multitude of unexplained anomalies, which exist in the theory of evolution, conceived?

Evolutionists, over the past century, have created a scientific god, “natural selection,” and now-evidently-they believe their god has been either crippled or destroyed.

…But in a world with very little genetic diversity, natural selection might indeed be stopped altogether…

The message of this quote is, human beings, who have come into existence by the power of “natural selection,” have somehow become more powerful than their “natural” creator and have therefore, brought “natural selection” to its evidently “unfit” knees. …

and thus only artificial evolution (through technology) would be able to allow us humans to cope with a changing environment…

“Artificial evolution?” There is no empirical evidence that evolution is a scientific fact, and now the evolutionist/eugenicist wants us to believe that an “artificial evolution” exists, which will help humanity “cope with a changing environment?” They can’t prove their original theory, so now they make up a new, “artificial” theory and presume that all of us will blindly buy into the newest version of their scientific fairy-tale. Unfortunately, we, as a nation, will buy into anything they throw at us. We have become putty in their hands, as well as sheep to the slaughter, and they know it!

Has America become so narcissistic that we are-now-devoid of all compassion, tenderness and mercy? How did we come to believe that only those who are healthy, athletically-gifted, brilliant and beautiful are worthy of life? If this is what we truly believe and desire, then what really separates us from Hitler and his philosophy of life? If this is what we want and desire and have no concern for those who don’t stack up, then how can we, when looking in a mirror, profess to be “moral” human beings?

Seeking God Outside of the Tradition

Yet the proponents of the theory of evolution simply don’t allow answers to their arguments, supposedly by rule. They’ll argue that God wouldn’t make a panda’s thumb in a certain way, yet those who might argue that God would make the panda’s thumb like it is supposedly aren’t allowed to answer.

Yes, and then they say, show me the peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design! They use this as evidence that ‘Intelligent Design’ is not science. They claim that ID is not science because it is not falsfiable, while at the same time claiming it false. I’m not really sure how something can be both false and unfalsifiable.

In Behe’s testimony in the Dover trial, he states,

Well, in the original manuscript as we had written it and sent it to the journal Protein Science,
the term [irreducible complexity] did, in fact, appear. But one of the reviewers of the manuscript told us to remove the term from the manuscript and find another description for what we were trying to focus on. (1; Page 46)

And then when naturalistic evolutionists review Behe’s article, they say it has nothing to do with ID. “Where are the relevant terms?” they cry…

Peer review can be a good process for insuring scientific integrity, but unfortunately, it is not.  It has become a form of scientific hegemony where those who have an ideological majority, control what is considered to be science.

(1) http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day10AMSession.pdf