Science has become the universal language and in the modernist worldview, it was said that science could answer all our problems and be the panacea to man's plight. Carl Sagan, 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, has announced that evolution has become a sort of religion. Science, itself, is a universal language. Evolution, itself, has become the faith of secular academia. In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; while in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin! Even Darwin criticized himself (one chapter in his book was entitled, "Difficulties with the Theory"). The evolutionist always has the comeback: "You must assume, that, somehow by faith, it happened (abiogenesis) or it was there (the primordial soup)!"
The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup. Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to. Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest. His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from? It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.
The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion. It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.
Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality." According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row! The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence. They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.
Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth). Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from? A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from? The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.
The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around. Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst! We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed. Man is devolving, not evolving! I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!
Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories. It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.
The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death. The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen! Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible? Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable! What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith." Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment. One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.
They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will. The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed. There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all. The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word. But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man. One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.
Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility! We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores. It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is. It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely. Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one! Soli Deo Gloria!
The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup. Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to. Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest. His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from? It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.
The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion. It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.
Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality." According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row! The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence. They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.
Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth). Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from? A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from? The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.
The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around. Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst! We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed. Man is devolving, not evolving! I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!
Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories. It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.
The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death. The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen! Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible? Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable! What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith." Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment. One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.
They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will. The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed. There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all. The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word. But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man. One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.
Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility! We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores. It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is. It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely. Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one! Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment