Chapter 23: A Hope and a Future

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 22 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

In my job as an Emergency room physician, I frequently see people who are “chemically impaired”.  Opiates,  benzo’s, cocaine, or maybe “just” THC or alcohol.  Sometimes more than a dozen patients a day.  Some agitated, aggressive belligerent, or dangerous… some mellow, sad, and depressed.  Occasionally they arrive hyperactive.  Sometimes they are somnolent, snoring or occasionally not breathing at all.  Many have lost all hope and are suicidal.

And sometimes, in a mood dominated by fatigue more than by compassion, one of the ER nurses will say “There is one more example of survival of the fittest in action.”

And in view of the evolution/creation debate, this raises a question?  Is there anything wrong with substance abuse?  If the universe and life itself are random accidents, why not “escape” reality every chance we get?  And if it causes pain or suffering or emotional distress to others in our family or our community, so what?  If there is no higher power, and no such thing as religion or spirituality… who cares? Why should a bipedal, sentient, evolutionary accident care?  What difference does it make to a random collection of molecules? Is it logical that a “smart monkey” should have ethical obligations?

Evolutionists loudly promulgate their religion in schools and on college campuses.  They label anyone who differs with their agenda as a miscreant, anti-intellectual, anti-science, or at best woefully uninformed.  But the real question is, why do they care?

Is it because they genuinely care that others might be uninformed or uneducated on the issue?  I don’t believe so.

Or is it because they want all the social mores that restrict them from uninhibited sexual expression and substance abuse removed?  Is it because they are offended by the possibility of a God to who they are ultimately accountable?

Rampant uninhibited sexuality and uncontrolled substance abuse are damaging to both individuals and to society.  They have been present in one form or another throughout the history of mankind.  But if we believe the random nature of existence suggested by evolution and the Big Bang, why does it really matter?

If on the other hand, we are NOT here by accident, and especially if we are created by a loving God,  born to have an actual relationship with Him, then alcoholism, substance abuse, and self-neglect are indeed “sins” worthy of condemnation. Why?  Because they stand in opposition to our divine nature, and they come between us and our destiny in Christ!

In this book, we have examined the shaky scientific foundations of Evolution and the Big Bang, and we have found them to be lacking.  This book is merely skimming the surface of the abundant Scientific data that is now available supporting a creation cosmology, rather than a Big Bang cosmology. There are many, many well written, scientific sites on the internet which will support my writings and opinions. Look at,

The Creation Institute,

Creation.com,

ICR.org,

Christiananswers.net,

RAE.org,

ARKY.org,

the Blue Letter Bible,

Bible Gateway,

answersingenesis.org, and many more.

Of course I also recommend my own site, Debunking-evolution.com.

It is my hope that as the reader examines the scientific evidence, he or she will no longer be intimidated by the secular atheistic interpretations of geology and archaeology.  Rather I hope that as you look objectively at the evidence, you will forsake the darkened mindset of the pagans (or the modern atheists) Paul wrote about in Romans Chapter One 18-21,

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rather, I hope that each and every reader will pray and ask the Almighty God of the Universe whether the words of this book are true.  Each of us has access to His Holy Spirit of Truth, and each can weigh the truth of God’s word vs the truth pushed on us by this fallen world.

And I pray that God will have mercy on us all as we seek out the Truth of His Word.

The Lord your God is with you. He’s mighty to deliver. He takes great delight in you. He will quiet you with His love. He rejoices over you with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)

Chapter 22: Evolving Jesus?

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To many modern Christians (apparently including even the Pope) evolution “must be accepted” because secular atheist scientists say it is true. This discussion has been dedicated to addressing the scientific reasons that evolution cannot be true.  I have explained how often scientists have had to make great leaps of faith in order to believe in evolution.  In fact, some would say (myself included) that evolution’s proponents have had to abandon the scientific method completely.

There is another equally important point. There is a cost to the individual and society for belief in evolution, and we are seeing it played out in society today.  The cost is immense. And at least equal to the ethical, scientific, and religious costs of believing in evolution. What is the scriptural cost of believing in evolution?  There are others, ministers and theologians and students of history who might be far more equipped and eloquent in explaining this than I.  Nevertheless I would be remiss to not address it at all. We have established that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in evolution, and equally importantly, there is no scientific reason NOT to believe the Bible. Still, we are told by atheistic scientists that we cannot believe the Bible creation account.

So the question arises, what does belief in evolution cost the Christian believer? The first, and clearest example is the need to toss out the entire first chapter of Genesis. We must change our view of scripture, from God’s Holy Word, to mythology and allegory. We must, in essence, assume that the Bible is not True (with a capital T). We are then soon prone to toss out the Flood account, disbelieve the Ark, and soon after that we toss out all those bothersome “unscientific” miracles in the New Testament. But at least we still believe in the Beatitudes, and in love your neighbor, we say.  At least we still believe in Jesus.  Or do we?

An important fact often lost on those Christians who “choose” evolution, is that we must also call Jesus a liar.  In Matthew 19:4 Jesus describes the creation, and how God Himself created man, and woman and marriage.  In Matthew 25:34 Jesus describes a kingdom “prepared from the foundation of the world” for those who minister to the poor, and naked, and hungry. In Mark 13:19 he talks about the creation which God created.  In Matthew 24:37 Jesus discusses the ArkHe talks about the event as if it were an established fact. He talks about Moses.  He mentions the prophet Elijah and Jonah.  He even mentions Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. He clearly accepted the Old Testament literally, and treated the events recorded there as historical facts. Not only that, but nearly all Bible scholars accept that the Theophanies (times when God appeared in the OT) were actual appearances of the Pre-incarnate Christ. (Remember, God created time. God is not limited by time.)  So when God told Moses on Mount Sinai that He created the world in six days, it was actually Jesus, the Pre-incarnate Christ, who spoke.

1 John Chapter 4 reads, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist.”  Sound harsh? Well… Heaven vs hell, Life vs death, Good vs Evil, Christ vs the Pharisees… many things in scripture seem harsh. For most secular atheists, evolution excludes the possibility of the Creator God and his Son Jesus Christ. So by definition, the theory of evolution seems to clearly fall under the definition of antichrist.  Why are atheist professors so adamant that their young wards accept evolution?  Could it be because they themselves have accepted the religion of the antichrist?  Based on 1 John Chapter 4, one would have to believe this is possible.

Of course there are many other reasons to believe the Bible creation account, and many other direct consequences that occur as a result of disbelieving.  If the creation account was not a literal six days, then what is the reason or justification for resting on the Sabbath day? If death did not enter the world as a result of sin, but was already there for hundreds of millions of years, then why do we need redemption (Romans 6:23), and a Savior?  Why was there a worldwide flood if not for man’s wickedness and sin?  Must we throw out that entire account as well?

In fact, as many have written, even our free will and ability to choose right vs wrong are based in the Creation account.  “Carried to its logical conclusion, evolution—the undirected, random evolving of living things—eliminates the power of the human will. Darwin, himself, came to the conclusion that free will is an illusion. If evolution is true, then it means that all our choices are merely actions or behaviors determined by our genes or our surrounding environment and are conditioned by past choices—either successful or otherwise.” (1)

As we look back into the dark reaches of history, it seems easy for us to ridicule the beliefs of ancient Baal worshipers and their orgies and human sacrifices.  It seems absurd when we read about the polytheistic pagans of Greece and Rome, who seemed to have a different quirky god for every day of the week.  The Middle Ages with their superstitions seem so inane and unsophisticated. “How unscientific”, we say.  And modern secular scientists want us to believe that Christianity is also bound for the trash heaps of history.  But what if the exact opposite is true?

Someday soon, will a future generation look back at a naive and scientifically illiterate generation of Christians in the late 20th century, saying “How could anyone actually have accepted the blathering unscriptural and unscientific idiocy of supposed scientists like Hawking and Dawkins?  The virtual black holes in their theories were so vast they swallowed up all vestiges of sentience and reason.

God’s Word was and is clear. And the science is clear as well. I believe that day will come, and soon, when Belief in Jesus and the proper place of science will be restored, and belief in evolution will be called the greatest hoax ever known.

 Put no more confidence in mortals. What are they worth?”  Isaiah 2:22 Good News Translation

Exodus 20:11 “In six days I, the Lord, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested.”

Evolution will one day be shown to be the greatest hoax in the history of science.  ANM

(1) http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/can-evolution-and-creation-go-together

Chapter 21: Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 21 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

BRANCH OR VINE? EVOLUTION AND SCRIPTURE.

We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggested that humans evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms and eventually from some single-celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. It made complete sense, from an evolutionary standpoint.

We have discussed the fact that nothing in science, or archeology, or genetics, or genomics has supported the validity of the Tree.  So it was changed.  Dozens of times… Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.

Image result for image of the evolutionary tree

A History of Existing Life — Fairhope Graphics - Evolutionary Trees -  Phylogenetic Trees - Natural History Gift Wrap

Branching diagram that appeared in Charles Darwin's _On the origin of species_, illustrating the idea that new species form from pre-existing species in a branching process that occurs over extended periods of time.

We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not just religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology, phylogenetics, and genomics. A universal Tree of Life (TOL) has long been a goal of molecular phylogeneticists, but reticulation at the level of genes and possibly at the levels of cells and species renders any simple interpretation of such a TOL, especially as applied to prokaryotes, problematic.(1)

Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer”  the diagram scores of times, but to no avail.  It is finally being discarded by those who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts.  You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY. (2) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the complete antithesis of evolution as it was taught for the last century.

As written by Dr. David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. (3) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!

Imagine that. According to evolutionary scientists, after a hundred years, and millions of fossils, we now have fewer example of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

Some may not believe this, so to further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(4) Yes, folks, evolutionists now believe in “jerky” evolution, or in other words, your mother might have been a dog or a cow. A fish, it seems, might have given birth to a lemming.

We have not yet examined the alternative viewpoint, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine.  John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (5)

nature countryside grapes vineyard
Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

You may wonder, “what does the Vine have to do with evolution?”   Simply this, how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. It affects how we do our jobs, live our lives, conduct our relationships, and view others. If we view ourselves as branches of the vine connected to the divine, perfect, loving, all-knowing Son of God, this imparts value and self-worth that cannot be ascribed any other way.  Certainly it is not found in viewing oneself as the mutated offspring of a monkey.

The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ.  (Which I believe is true, and probably the primary interpretation.) However, the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences.

If we want the sciences to quite literally come to life, they will only do so in their proper context, which is the study of God’s creation for the benefit of mankind, and all God’s creation. One example is fetal tissue research.  It is needless, evil, destructive, and immoral.  It is against all the precepts of the Bible.  Yet it is deemed essential in the “morality” of the secular atheists.  The same proteins and similar types of immature stem cell lines can be obtained from cancer cells, and the same research can be done, without destroying human life.

Another example is space exploration and astronomy.  Knowing that there is a God and he created all things might prevent trillions of wasted dollars spent investigating a non-existent Big Bang, and searching for ET, and instead focus on science that improves the lives of every human being here on Earth. Not that I am in favor of defunding scientific research, for I certainly am not. However directing that funding effectively could avoid massive waste!

I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”

Certainly, that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity.  It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset. (6) It is focused only on propping up the failed theory of evolution, not on finding the real truth.

Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, nor is it incompatible with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.

Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we saw our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a relatively steady pace. These men practiced their scientific inquiry in an attitude of humility, with the acknowledgment of a divine omnipotent Creator God. And they sought both scientific advancement, and improvement of the human condition.

But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom or an improved standard of living for society as a whole.   We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.

Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in some senses that is true.  But each is connected and intertwined with the other. For example, the sociological phenomenon of secular atheism which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution. And as belief in evolution has grown, so has atheism.

So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way, and the truth and the life”(7), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.

As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(8)

The Bible has revolutionized the life of individual and societies.

So never forget, “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God-given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

(1)W. Ford Doolittle ,Tyler D. P. Brunet, Published: April 14, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005912

(2) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#f2

(3) (1) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(4) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

(5) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” 

(6) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”  

(7) John 14:6

(8) http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/

Chapter 20: Millenials- A Generation Lost in Deep Time

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Chapter 20 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD Many millennials are lost. According to an article in the Huff Post entitled “Millennials: The Lost Generation”, “Today we have a whole group of young people that we call millennials – men and women ages 18-33, who have higher rates of depression, stress and suicide, than any generation before them.“(1) An internet search on “millennials the lost generation” reveals scores of hits. But one naturally wonders, why is this generation lost?  Is is, as we discussed in the previous chapter, because they have been subjected to an indoctrination in the secular atheistic mindset throughout their educational process? Perhaps they are lost because they have no strong sense of personal identity.  Perhaps they are lost because millions of their parents were more interested in being drunk or high than being parents. Perhaps they are lost because they are misled by politicians whose only concern is power, not Truth. Or perhaps, as I am prone to believe, they are lost because they have no foundations on which to base their lives. They are lost because they have no moral compass, no set of coherent eternal truths, no absolutes.  They are lost because they have been taught in the halls of academia that there is no such thing as absolute truth. An   if no absolute truth exists, how then are we to orient our lives? If there is no Right or Wrong, how doe we set the True North of our internal moral compass? We cannot! Moreover, they are lost because academia has told them they cannot believe the Bible.  And they fell for it, hook line and sinkerWhy did they believe such a lie?  Because atheistic scientists said it, and so it must be true But think about this!  Atheistic scientists would say the Bible is false even if Jesus himself healed a withered hand or restored sight to a blind man in their presence! They are atheists!  Everything they say, do, predict or interpret is seen though their atheistic world view! Therefore it is no surprise that atheists say the Bible is not true. But what does the Bible say about atheists?  It says they are fools. Psalm 14:1 reads “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”(2)  Who then should we believe? Will you believe the atheists or the Word of God? Few have considered, as written by Matt Slick, that atheism is in itself ultimately self refuting. “A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there’s no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting “mechanically.” (3) In other words, every response by a materialistic atheist to any argument, including belief or disbelief in God, is by their own definitions a mere random, pre-programmed chemical reaction. It has no merit, no basis, no meaning! Unfortunately, Millennials have been given a choice of believing science, or believing the Word of God.  Such a forced choice is irrational, and unnecessary because science and God’s word are not contradictory. (See Chapter 13, Science vs Reason.) But Public Education has failed them, because they took away even the possibility of Biblical truth.  Instead they filled their heads with diagrams of an outdated and scientifically discredited evolutionary tree of life, fraudulent Piltdown man, and imaginary monkey to man diagrams. Consequently, an entire generation has lost faith in the Bible due to the atheistic, secular agenda in our schools. We trusted the government to teach our children.  But as stated by Mary Nutting at Answers in Genesis, “Many families today are in deep trouble because they have not been “diligently teaching” their children. Instead, they have left it to the schools, media, museums, national parks, and others to do the job.”(4) And the government trusted the textbooks, and the textbooks trusted the atheists. But why did the texts use atheistic presuppositions to program our children against belief in God, or the Bible? Perhaps because some of the arguments for an ancient universe seem so logical, at least on the surface. Like Deep Time. The strongest atheistic arguments against the Bible are those rooted in Deep Time (for example light travelling across the universe).  The atheists have convinced most of the world that Genesis cannot be literally true because of the long ages they claim are shown by geology and astronomy.  Deep Time is the foundational belief that undergirds atheistic arguments against Biblical truth by suggesting everything about the Bible timeline is impossible.  According to the internet dictionary, deep time is: “the multimillion year time frame within which scientists believe the earth has existed, and which is supported by the observation of natural, mostly geological, phenomena.” It will exceed the scope of this post to instruct the reader fully as to why Deep Time is an unreliable concept, but suffice it to say that as with all other scientific conclusions reached by atheists, the science is subject to the ideology. In fact, it might be helpful to the reader to know that the very same deep time arguments used to “disprove” the Bible also disprove the Big Bang itself! The size of the universe, as observed by the Hubble Telescope, is far too large, and the furthest galaxies far too distant, to be explained by the Big Bang a mere 13.8 billion years ago! When an atheistic scientist makes a choice to absolutely rule out any possibility of God the Creator, this choice influences and pervades and contaminates all their other research and conclusions. No matter how clearly the scientific evidence might be in pointing to a Creator, the avowed atheist will not see it. The simple fact is that the existence of the universe, and the existence of life itself are miraculous.  Atheists choose their explanations for the miracles, a “Big Bang” for which they have no proof, followed by life randomly creating and advancing itself out of nothing and for no reason.  Bible scholars and scientifically oriented Christians choose another explanation. Deep Time was a concept well fitted to evolution. The theory of evolution required time spans of hundreds of millions of years to be at all believable. Of course open-minded scientists now know that evolution cannot occur no matter how many billions of years one postulates. Deep Time is no longer relevant.  In the meantime, as the house of cards called Evolution continues to collapse, we are seeing thousands more open minded scientists, biologists, and astronomers addressing the concept of deep time as well. My  hope is that very soon, as a result of these advances in scientific understanding, Millennials will not remain lost.  They will have hope.  They will find the gospel.  They will seek and find the Bible, and they will find the vast amounts of scientific and archeological evidence that supports the Bible.  They won’t find it, of course, in the halls of atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christ academia.  But you can find it, even now, in places like Answers in Genesis, Evolutioncreation.net, and Creation.com. (1)www.huffpost.com/entry/millennials-the-lost-generation_b_582aaabde4b0852d9ec21ca9 (2) Psalms 14:1 KJV (3) carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting (4) answersingenesis.org/family/families-are-gods-idea-beginning-in-genesis/ (5) ibid

Chapter 19: Evolving Education– Whether to Teach, to Educate, or to Tell the Truth

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 19 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

NOKO is often in the news, and rarely in a good way. Teachers in North Korea risk imprisonment or death if they stray from the government approved curricula.  According to the site Foreign Policy News, the mandatory state school education includes large amounts of hate speech, revised history, and idolization of leadership.(1) And yet tens of thousands of teachers just “go along” and don’t make waves. Teachers are faced with a choice of teaching what is in a textbook or teaching the truth.  They have to decide whether to teach what is a PC, government-sanctioned lie, or risk discrimination, disgrace, or worse for telling the truth!

We who live in the free and unfettered West are appalled that such state-sanctioned oppression of teachers and education could occur.  We are aghast and we look down our noses at such propaganda disguised as curricula.

But is this unique to North Korea? Or does it occur with great frequency in other countries? And are teachers in the United States also involved in propagandizing, rather than freely teaching?

Teaching is a high calling, and in order to achieve that high calling a teacher must instill truth at every opportunity, not lies.  Teaching involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging. Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute. There is no God, no Jesus, no Biblical source of right or wrong, no absolute truth. Just truth defined by atheism and political correctness!

Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than equipping students to evaluate the issues themselves, or to seek out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers and students with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda. Unwilling to suffer failing grades as a punishment for standing up for Truth.

David Gooblar, a lecturer at the University of Iowa, explains why this is illogical, “To put this in perspective, you got a dubious letter and just spent 20 minutes fact-checking the mailman. And then you actually opened the letter and found it was a signed letter from your Mom. ‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but the mailman is a Republican!’ ”(2)  Is it really the messenger which deserves the focus of our attention?  Should we not rather focus on the message itself, and read what our mother has written carefully and attentively?

This is the state of so-called higher education today.  In fact, I would suggest that the highest calling that some of our educators strive to attain is not truth-telling or truth-seeking, but inculcating a liberal philosophy into the minds of impressionable students, indoctrinating those youth into an atheistic, liberal, anti-God, pro-evolutionary mindset.

Now admittedly, teachers find themselves in a difficult position.  If the textbook authors say there is no God, evolution is a fact, and the Big Bang has been “proven beyond question”, who are they to question such things? Readers will know from prior posts that the Big Bang and evolution have certainly NOT been proven, and are NOT even scientific, but are rather propped up by numerous unscientific allowances and alterations (think Dark matter, Dark energy and the Inflationary period). But we have already discussed this in previous chapters.  Now let’s just start with this question. Does the author of a textbook, or the school board, or the government of the U.S. have a right to tell teachers they cannot believe in or speak about their belief in God?  Do they have a right to indoctrinate all the children in public schools into the religion of secular atheism?

Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)

If that statement is true, it is both powerful, and tragic. Are we indoctrinating students the same way teacher in the Middle Ages did?  Has the pendulum swung so far away from fundamental Christian beliefs that our educational system is a tool of secular atheism?  I believe it has. But what can an open-minded parent or student do?  If one wishes to fully educate a child, and not just indoctrinate them, what are your choices?  Many, it appears, are choosing not to expose their children to atheist propaganda. According to the site Conservapedia,

The use of public school indoctrination is growing less effective for purposes of atheist indoctrination due to budgetary problems facing many governments in the Western World (per pupil it cost more to educate students via public schools than private schools), the inferiority of many public school systems and the growing popularity of vouchers for education (which can be used for private religious school education) and the growing practice of  homeschooling by parents.

In addition, many public universities college are failing to educate students properly and many college students are jobless as a result. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt. (3)

As tragic as that is, still God works in mysterious ways. I can imagine the day when school teachers, school boards and parents come together and agree that indoctrination is NOT education! Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of this movement in Virginia today. I can hope that someday soon students in public schools will no longer be force-fed secular atheist propaganda.  I hope that we are now at a time, a very special time, when tens of thousands of teachers will once again be inspired to teach, not just push atheism and secularism.  And then perhaps students will again be encouraged to think freely and evaluate faith, and science, with an open mind.

(1) http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/02/23/inside-north-koreas-education-system/

(2) http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Teach-Information/243973

(3) /www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

Chapter 18: The Absurd Cosmology of the Big Bang

flight landscape nature sky

Chapter 18 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Last chapter we discussed a few of the many scientific problems with the Big Bang.  Yet in spite of all these problems, many in the secular scientific community insist it is the only possible explanation for the universe as we know it.  If you are one of those who believe in the big bang, I suppose I will call you a Banger.  As I explained previously, for many scientific reasons, I absolutely do not believe the big bang cosmology.) After hearing the following, I hope you will agree.  I apologize in advance for two relatively lengthy quotations of over 100 words each, but I believe you will see their importance as we evaluated the scientific relevance of the so-called Big Bang.

Since I do not believe in the Big Bang, some would call me a Bible Thumper.  (Some have even called me an idiot or a moron.)  As an ER physician, I can say categorically that none of those accusations are true. Still, you will routinely find insults or expletives which are leveled at anyone (scientist, physician, educator, or student) who dares question the currently prevailing big bang cosmology. I have been insulted many times in a similar vein by brainwashed, self-absorbed, college freshmen with no training whatsoever in the sciences, who believe in the Big Bang with a religious fervor. So, you may call me a Thumper, and I will call you, and said college freshmen, Bangers. Why?

Because Bangers, with their unquestioning groupthink are a danger to the scientific community.  They are an embarrassment to science as a whole. They stand in the way of real scientific progress by their unassailable devotion to their atheistic and evolutionary mindset. And I am certainly not the only one who believes this. As explained by Tom Watkins, retired Military Scientist, the big bang is not only a mere theory, it is a very poor theory indeed. In fact, there are astronomical problems with the Big Bang…

Unfortunately, we also found some verifiable evidence that cannot be explained by the BB theory.  For instance, there is an imbalance of matter and anti-matter and there is much less lithium than there should be.  Some other inconsistencies are so complex that they usually go by names such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the monopole problem. (look them up)  There are others.

And then there is the simple matter of the timing of the BB.  If we see the universe is expanding and theorize that it must have been smaller in the past, wouldn’t it be necessary to know how large it is now in order to project how long it took it to expand to its present size?  Even at speed C.  We can not see past 13.7 BLY out but for a variety of reasons, the observable diameter of the universe is actually about 93 billion light years and the diameter of the whole universe beyond that can be seen may be as large as 3 x 10 (to the 23 power) times larger than 93 BLYs.  That is a large number but the difference (between that large number and 13.7) is explained, not by the BB but by the expansion of space itself by some, as yet, unknown process.

One other interesting fallacy is related to the cosmological constant.  The error between observation and calculated (conjectured) vacuum energy of space is a factor of 1 x 10 to the 120th power.  That is the largest error between theory and observation of anything in any science.  This is called the Vacuum Catastrophe.  It is hard to relate to the size of this error, it is so big. (1)

For those who cannot comprehend 10 to the 120th power, it is estimated that the number of atoms in the entire universe is approximately 10 to the 80th power.  So that means that 10 to the 120th power is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the number of atoms in the entire known universe. That it the ERROR in the so-called “cosmological constant” that Bangers rely on.

So for those of you who are truly of a scientific mindset (not group thinking Bangers),  I hope you will recognize that those who tell you that the Big Bang is settled science are the real science deniers.  They deny the matter/antimatter problem, the horizon problem, the monopole problem, the flatness problem, the cosmological constant discrepancy, the Vacuum catastrophe, and more. You see, for a Banger, there is no possible way to scientifically disprove the Big Bang.  It is an Article of Faith.

Even the Bangers admit this. A 2017 article by Fraser Cain on Cosmic Inflation, reads, “The Big Bang was one of the greatest theories in the history of science. Although it did have a few problems, cosmic inflation was developed to address them. Although there have been a few false starts, astronomers are now performing a sensitive enough search that they might find evidence of this amazing inflationary period. And then it’ll be Nobel Prizes all around.” (2) Note the words “might find evidence.” The inflationary period is so critical that the entire theory collapses without it, and yet we have NO evidence to substantiate it!

So in spite of what Bangers tell you, their theory is not proven or settled in any way. There are myriad problems and confounding variables, some of which are more vast than the universe itself. But the true absurdity of their group think is explained in the following excerpt, from a 2018 post on Quora.com, by Bud Rapanault, in which we see that the big bang theory fails in almost every scientific sense, both BEFORE the so-called inflationary period, and AFTER!

According to the big bang model, the “universe” sprang into being 13.8 billion years ago from a physically inexplicable initial condition wherein the entire universe was compressed into a volume quite a bit smaller than a gnat’s ass.

This remarkable and quite inexplicable initial condition then transitioned, for an inexplicable reason, to a somewhat explicable condition. At that point, the model mathematically invokes an unobservable, ad hoc, inflation field to transition this “universe” to an even more explicable expanding state.

None of the foregoing has any empirical evidence to support it. It all took place, according to the theory, in a deep mythological past that is impervious to direct observation; the claimed events lie beyond the realm of science. Therefore, the model, to that point, is an unscientific mathematical absurdity. It says nothing scientifically meaningful about the nature of the cosmos.

It is then claimed that the post-absurdity, post-inflation “universe” can be modeled using standard physics to create an observable “universe” that might be said to resemble the cosmos we observe.

Except that, the big bang model’s version of our observed cosmos contains two significant features, dark matter and dark energy. Together they are said to comprise 95% of the matter-energy content of the “universe”. These features are predictions of the model; their existence is required to make the model agree with observations. However, no empirical evidence for either can be found. They do not exist in the cosmos we observe and measure. They exist only in the mathematical (big bang) model that requires them.

Therefore, it can be said that from its absurd mythological beginning to its empirically baseless description of a “current universe”, the big bang model bears no significant structural resemblance to the physical reality we actually observe and measure. The big bang model is nothing but a vapid mathematicism. That it is widely taught as unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy to impressionable students like Mr. Fraser is a scandal.“(3)

Additionally. supermassive black holes present big problems for Big Bang scientists. Giant black holes have been detected at enormous distances from us. But according to secular Big Bang thinking, this means we are seeing them, not as they are now, but as they were shortly after the Big Bang. There is a giant black hole thought to have formed just 690 million years after the Big Bang. Secular scientists can’t explain how natural processes could form such massive objects so fast. This like the problem of distant galaxies, some further away in light years than the age of the universe itself, completely undermines and plagues the Big Bang model.

So, sorry Bangers.  The improbable, imaginary Big Bang is not settled science at all. Of this I am quite sure Einstein would agree.

(1) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

(2) http://www.universetoday.com/tag/the-monopole-problem/

(3) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

Genesis 1:3     And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Chapter 17: Nothing can’t do something

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 17 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Where did the universe come from?

Secular Academics will tell you it created itself from nothing. Well, technically they say it was a from an infinitesimally small, tiny bubble of nothing.

Where did the bubble come from? And how tiny was it. and tiny compared to what? And what does infinitesimally small mean?  After all there was nothing there to compare it with…

In quantum physicis, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation, or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle.  (Wikipedia)

Or as written in the Physics ArXiv blog, “At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.”(1) Talk about taking something to the extreme! Start with the fact we can not know everything, and conclude a universe that created itself from nothing!

Stated in common English, supposedly this quantum vacuum state (nothing) can (temporarily) do something, and (permanently) create everything (our universe) out of nothing…. all because of an “uncertainty principle”. So no matter how you phrase it, or what you call it, it would mean that where there was absolute, complete nothingness… something appeared for no reason, with no cause, and no predecessor.

Now if this reads like nonsense, it is because it IS nonsense. The uncertainty principle, in its simplest form, simply states that you cannot accurately measure both the position (location) and the velocity (speed) of a particle because the process of measuring will by definition require altering one or the other (position or velocity).

Encyclopedia Britannica explains, “Ordinary experience provides no clue of this principle. It is easy to measure both the position and the velocity of, say, an automobile, because the uncertainties implied by this principle for ordinary objects are too small to be observed. The complete rule stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and velocity is equal to or greater than a tiny physical quantity, or constant (h/(4π), where h is Planck’s constant, or about 6.6 × 10−34 joule-second). Only for the exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles does the product of the uncertainties become significant.” (2)

But even if you DID believe the secular atheists’ myths about the Big Bang based on these secular mind games that are far more philosophic than scientific… even if you accepted that the universe somehow created itself, then there are all the same questions about where the universe came from, but only moved to another level. Questions like:

  1. If all the Big Bang scientists believe in an expanding universe, what is the universe expanding into? (Did Space exist a priori?)
  2. What happened just before the Big Bang? (Cosmologists differ… they have no idea)
  3. Did the Big Bang have a location? Where was it? Is earth at the center? (Because if it is that has enormous space-time implications.)
  4. If nothing can instantaneously create everything, can we all be instantaneously replaced by another Bang?
  5. If they still don’t know if atoms and light are particles or waves, how can secular science claim to know how, when, where or why the Universe began?
  6. If you believe the Universe can create itself (something you cannot even begin to understand), what keeps you from believing in an Almighty Supreme Being (a being we are also completely incapable of comprehending) who has the power to create all things?
  7. If the universe was created from a “metastable false vacuum”, then it was created from SOMETHING, not nothing! So where did the metastable false vacuum come from, and what rules existed a priori, that controlled its actions and behaviors?

Secular cosmology clearly and emphatically does not have all the answers. Don’t let them bully you into believing nonsense. Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming.  Yet we are told by secular educators and “scientists” that it is an established fact.  What utter nonsense. Here are just a few of the unresolved scientific problems with the Big Bang.

Problem #1.  The vacuum catastrophe.  Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream.  If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Scientists wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness. (which of course means energy existed, not nothing.) THey claimed it was enough energy to create the universe.

Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing.  This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (3)

So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for 
General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum
energy has a real physical meaning.  In fact, the 
Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by 
about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude!  This 
is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which 
remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics
in the modern era.

Problem #2.  95% dark matter… dark energy… WIMPS? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles).  What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no.  How do we know they exist?  We don’t.   Why do the astronomers suggest WIMPS and dark matter and energy are there?  Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there.  Or else the formulas are wrong!  (Now there’s an idea!)  As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, “we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (4) In reality we are all just a single (last) breath away from an infinitely greater understanding!

Problem #3.  Dispersion forces. In the first stages of the universe, there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger).  This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation.  Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form.  Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means.  If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy (such as gravity or friction, which had no reason to exist in the Big Bang).  In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence.  There was no other energy in existence. Thus the explosion could never have formed galaxies, or planets, or any other structures.

Problem #4.  Thermodynamics One. The Big Bang clearly violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Every counter-argument to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present (which violates nothingness).

Problem #5. Thermodynamics Two. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy.  The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few.  The energy had to come from somewhere.  In the same way it could not create itself (See Problem #4), it also could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(5)

Problem #6.  Expansion. The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light.  The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on Uniformitarian principles, using currently measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here.  They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be vastly greater than the speed of light.  This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories.  Just not when it involves Creation. See previous chapter on Uniformitarianism.

Problem #7.  Matter/Antimatter. If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been expected.  Yet we find no such evidence.  Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none answer the question.  All require some “other” force or condition.  In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons.  Only quarks and no anti-quarks.  Only protons and no anti-protons.

Problem #8.  Constantly changing Constants. With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant!  Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc.  The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc.   In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant.   (This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value.  We shall see…) In the meantime, as you can tell from Problems 1 through 7, it is merely vapid and rapidly changing mathematical formulas, not a serious explanation for the origin or the universe.

(1) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

(2) http://www.britannica.com/biography/Werner-Heisenberg#ref524688

(3) http://www.redshiftacademy.com/index.php/redshift/topic/the_vacuum_catastrophe

(4) http://www.space.com/38640-dark-matter-map-big-bang-kavli.html

(5)http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html

(6) “Big Bang Theory — An Overview.” All About Science. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

(See also) Space.com, New Map of Dark Matter Puts the Big Bang Theory on Trial (Kavli Roundtable) By Adam Hadhazy | 

“Cambridge Cosmology: Hot Big Bang Model.” Cambridge University. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

Castellanos, Joel. “The Shape of Space.” NonEuclid. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/space.html

Felder, Gary. “Beyond the Big Bang: Inflation and the Very Early Universe.” North Carolina State University. 2002.

“The Geometry of the Universe.” Astronomy 162. University of Tennessee. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html

Marmet, Paul. “Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.” 21st Century, Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1990. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3 NIV

Chapter 16: The Failures of Uniformitarianism

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 16 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

What in the world is Uniformitarianism?

It sounds like it might be the title of a new Stephen King book. “The Uniformitarians”. Pretty scary stuff, right?

Or maybe it might be a new religion. “Don’t listen to those Uniformitarians, they are a cult!” (This is too close to the truth for comfort.)

But in reality it is another facade adapted by the secular scientific community. Geologists and cosmologists tell us they can apply the rules of the universe as we now see them, and predict the past (supposedly some 14 billion years) based on current laws of physics and current rates of physical processes. (Sounds complicated, but it really isn’t.) They will tell you that based on the Doctrine of Uniformity, the earth “must” be 5 billion years old, and the universe “must” be 14 billion years old.  Uniformitarianism states that the changes in the past can be measured and understood because they involve “continuous and uniform processes”. That all sounds great, it even sounds scientific, but is it true? Can they really be measured and predicted?  And do they really involve continuous and uniform processes?  Has this been proven or verified in any way? Do we have any proof or evidence supporting uniformitarianism, or do secular scientists just use this as a talking point, and then change the rules whenever it suits them?

As defined in the dictionary (originating in Geology but used in cosmology as well):

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism  noun the theory that changes in the earth’s crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.

According to Wikipedia, it is “an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method… Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, refers to the invariance in the principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of causality, or causation, throughout time, but it has also been used to describe invariance of physical laws through time and space. Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method, uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.”(1) It is important to note that the Doctrine of Uniformity and the principle of Uniformitarianism are unprovable. (Especially when so many secular scientist claim they KNOW the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe based on uniformitarian principles.)

But there is another consideration that is perhaps even more important, both in practice and in principle. Not only is the Doctrine of Uniformity unprovable, but the principle of uniformitarianism also has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied. As stated by Roger Patterson, “The ideas presented in the textbooks are based on uniformitarian assumptions and have many problems that are not discussed, despite the presence of phrases like “we know” and “scientists have shown”. (2) For example:

  • Secular scientists apply the rules of modern physics to the formation of the universe under the Nebular Hypothesis. But according to the rules of physics, the particles that might or might not form after such an explosion would not stick together (coalesce) or undergo accretion, and thus could not form planets, or stars, or galaxies. (Non-uniformiarian!)
  • Further, they would of necessity have had to travel at speeds far greater than the speed of light, an obvious and absurd exception to the principles of physics and a glaring exception to the application of uniformitarian principles.
  • Or for another example, in the study of biology, there is a well known and accepted “Law of Abiogenesis”. It is, simply stated, “life cannot come from non-life”, or in other words non-living matter cannot spontaneously come to life. Everyone knows this is true. Everyone accepts this, except if you believe in Evolution. In order to believe in evolution, you must first accept that life magically created itself out of a bunch of random chemicals, and then reproduced itself. Each step is impossible, but yet this is what our institutes of “higher learning” expect students to accept. (Not uniformitarian!)
  • Let me give one more example. The Moon rocks collected from the Moon were dated at 4.5 billion years of age using secular “uniformitarian” assumptions. But using the lunar recession models (based on current rates, or even “adjusted” rates) the Moon would have been quite literally touching the earth just a billion years or so in the past. So the scientists make exceptions, or disallow the evidence, or ignore the findings, but they cannot uniformly apply them.
  • And in yet another strong refutation, Uniformitarian assumptions on evolution should show that somewhere in the world, species are evolving as we speak. In order for the billions upon billions of evolutionary changes necessary to have occurred in just a few hundred millions of years, we should see evolution regularly as species advance along the evolutionary scale. There should be a new species appearing every few months or years! Yet in the entire recorded history of the world, in thousands of years, we have no record of a single example of any new species from evolution.

Geology offers many other examples, in which current processes could not have created the earth as we find it. Fossil layers, rates of mountain erosion, seafloor sediment deposition, and polystrate fossils could not have occurred as described by the Old Age Earth textbooks. The rate of uplift of the Himalayas is far too great to be accounted for by Uniformitarian assumptions. In many cases, the Biblical Flood offers a much more sensible model than uniformitarianism.  As an example, did you know that one single mine in Canada’s tar sands can move thirty billion tons of sediment a year? That is double the amount moved by all the rivers in the world combined. If that is true, then imagine the amounts which might be moved or shifted during Ice ages, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, or a Global Flood! It is so astronomical that it boggles the mind… and completely discounts any possibility of geographic “uniformitarian” assumptions. Nevertheless, even though as seen above, Old Age estimates violate their own premises of “uniform and continuous processes”, the geology texts insist on Old Age estimates for the Earth.

Why? Because the old age earth theory is essential to evolution,  and evolution is essential to atheism!

And speaking of Ice ages… this is another area win which creation science excels, and secular science fails miserably.

You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air…

You can’t have an Ice Age without extremely warm oceans and really cold air

You can’t have…  Well, you get it.  Secular science and creation scientists agree that we have good geological evidence that an Ice age occurred.  There are telltale signs all over the northernmost landscapes that suggest massive erosive patterns from huge ice sheets and glaciers. But while most secular geologists have absolutely no idea how or why these occurred, geologist Tim Clarey, Ph. D. believes he has the answers in his article “Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age.”

Image result for ice ages pictures

An ice age requires massive, enormous, unprecedented, ridiculous, astronomically unbelievable amounts of snow.   Estimates require at least 4,000 inches of snow a year just to keep up with melting snow at the leading edge! That’s not even considering how much (vastly more) is needed to create the massive fields of ice to begin with!

As Written by Michael Oard, “melting in a dry, cool Ice Age climate (50°F, or 10°C, average summer temperature) near the edge of the ice sheet is about 400 inches (10 m) of ice a year. One inch of ice corresponds to an average of 10 inches of powder snow. So for Minneapolis this would represent 4,000 inches (100 m) of powder snow a year, which is about 100 times their annual average. So, even during a relatively cool summer, the amount of snowfall required is tremendous.”(3)

Such massive amounts of snow require constantly replenished moisture in the atmosphere. Where can we find massive amounts of moisture that goes into the atmosphere, so it can then come down as snow? The only possible source of such abundant moisture is, you guessed it, WARM OCEANS. Why is this important?

For decades secular atheist scientist have told us they understand the ice ages. They claim to know when they occurred, and they claim to know what caused them.  But if you ask any secular scientist how they explain the astronomically vast amounts of moisture that would have been required to create the glaciers… you can hear the cricketsThey have no idea. Most do not even address the topic!

Image result for ice ages pictures

Traditional ice age explanations involve only periods of extended cold.   The theories postulate (guess) that there might have been extended decades or centuries of cold because of sun spots, or wobbles in the earth’s orbit, or changes in the axis. Scott Elias writes,

Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth’s climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles.”(4)

Or as written by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek, “Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).”(5)

Note that there is still no mention of moisture, just cold. And cold alone cannot cause an Ice Age. But at least the plebeian Wikipedia is honest, stating, “The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age.” (6)

So who, exactly, does have a plausible explanation for the unbelievably vast amounts of snow that could not occur without both the COLD air and the WARM oceans?  Well, it turns out that creation science may have the explanation. Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about ice ages, and he states that an ice age would require much warmer oceans than we have today and much cooler summers then we have today.  And what could cause such conditions?   According to Tim Clarey, Ph.D.  “the answer is the rapid subduction involved in catastrophic plate tectonics.”(7)

But what is catastrophic plate tectonics?  It involves rapid movement of continental plates, and subduction of these massive plates over and under one another (as might have occurred when Pangaea broke up and plates moved rapidly toward their current positions.) At such times, it is likely, almost guaranteed, that large areas of the earth’s molten core on which the plates rested would have been exposed to the oceans, and unbelievably massive quantities of ocean water would have been vaporized into steam and then converted into water vapor, and subsequently rain or snow. Thus providing PLENTY of warm water and cold atmospheric conditions… just right for an Ice Age!

At that same time, the same plate subductions would have created hundreds or thousands of volcanoes. Those volcanoes were ejecting millions and millions of tons of aerosolized gases, chemicals, and ash high into the atmosphere and blocking the sun (probably for many years) leading to atmospheric cooling.  So it is extremely likely that if there was a global flood caused by plate tectonics and subduction, it would probably have been followed soon after by an ice age!

So to summarize, catastrophic plate tectonics (rapid movement of the large continental plates from ancient Pangaea toward their modern locations) would have caused:

1.) Exposure of huge areas of magma under the oceans, vaporizing vast quantities of ocean water.

2.) Massive persistent rains for weeks or months (sounds like a global flood) while the continents moved and “mountains bowed down” (continental plates subducted and immersed).

3.) Expulsion of billions of tons of ash and sulfur into the stratosphere through volcanic venting, with subsequent rapid cooling of the earth.

4.) And finally an Ice age as the warm oceans continued their rapid evaporation, but the Northern and Southern hemispheres experienced severe cooling from volcanic shielding.

So the best, most plausible explanation for the ice age seems to be catastrophic plate tectonics. This means that in order to provide both warm oceans, and cooler atmospheres, we can look to the Biblical account of the flood.

And as we have seen, massive amounts of water in the atmosphere were also required for a global flood, as written in Genesis 7:19, “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.” But it was not enough to just have “lots of water” in order for the top of the mountains to be covered. It almost certainly required the mountains themselves to bow down!  And this, too, involves catastrophic plate tectonics.

Psalm 104:6-9 reads, “6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; 8 they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. 9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”

Job 9:5 reads, “He who removes mountains, and they know it not, when he overturns them in his anger”.

Ps. 46:2 reads: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,”

Those who believe the “Uniformitarian” assumptions assure us (with absolutely NO proof) that Pangaea was hundreds of millions of years in the past.  They say the rate of continental drift we see today is the rate that has been present for millions of years. But if you read my prior blog “The Uniformitarians” you will see that such blatant over-reach is common on the part of secular geologists. And you will see that they routinely fail to actually apply Uniformitarian principles, except when these assumptions are convenient for them, and for their secular agenda.  (See chapter on  Uniformitarianism for proofs including the Himalayas, the moon, the ocean floor sediment, and more.)

As I wrote there, “The principle of uniformitarianism has never truly been applied, because in every setting of science, whether astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, or geology, there are glaring problems that require major adaptions or exceptions for the principle to be even loosely applied.”

So, as with much of science, the secular atheistic interpretations about the Ice Ages may be in conflict with the Bible, but the actual scientific facts are not. If you want to understand the Ice Ages, your best bet is understanding the events surrounding the Flood. For a very good discussion see the site at Answers in Genesis “The Mystery of the Ice Age“.(8)

So whenever a biology or geology professor tells you something is billions of years old, you can be sure there is more than sufficient evidence to dispute that statement. Do your research, and the Uniformitarian assumptions of Old Earth and Old Universe will fall apart. Uniformitarian assumptions are unproven, unscientific, and insufficient for determining history, and they are certainly inadequate by any definition for evaluating or proving anything about origins. They are also certainly inadequate for judging the Bible as a work of history.  Uniformitarianism gets an F in History.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

(2) Patterson, R., Evolution Exposed, Answers in Genesis, 2008, P. 68.

(3) answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/the-mystery-of-the-ice-age/

(4) culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

(5) geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

(6) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

(7) http://www.icr.org/article/subduction-was-essential-for-the-ice-age/

(8) answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/the-mystery-of-the-ice-age/

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. — Romans 1:20 NLT

Chapter 15-Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 15 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

In this book, we have had much to say about scientism.  It is likely that for many readers this is their first exposure to that term. Scientism is the irrational, unproven, and unscientific belief that all the questions to life, the universe, history, and mankind can be found through scientific means. In other words, it is the unfounded belief that “science has all the answers.” If this book were to accomplish no more than introducing the concept to our country at large, and initiating a serious societal discussion on the implications of scientism, it would be a success.  Of course, I believe it can do much more than that, to enhance the real and practical applications of science, and to place science in its proper place in God’s created order.

But what is scientism, and what does the average person need to know about scientism? And why should anyone be concerned with the prevalence of scientism in society today?

  • First, scientism is philosophy masquerading as science.  It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.  If you are a scientist, you may not be enough of a philosopher to recognize its blatant falsehood.  If you are a philosopher you might believe you do not know enough about science to refute its claims.  If you are an average man or woman on the street you might just accept scientism, thinking “surely all those academic people can’t be wrong.” Nevertheless, scientism has never been proven true by ANY method, let alone the scientific method!
  • Second, scientism refutes itself.  You don’t have to be “smart enough” to refute sccientism!  It is SELF-REFUTING!  Scientism claims that the only things we can know about the universe are those things which have been tested and proven scientifically… but scientism itself has not been tested or proven scientifically.  Thus belief in scientism is not only irrational.  It is UNSCIENTIFIC.  Ethical, unbiased scientists, for example, would not reject (out of hand with no evidence) the possibility that the universe originated at the hand of an omnipotent Creator.  They would not claim to “know” there is no God. To do so is unscientific!
  • Third, scientism causes people to reject their faith.  To the practitioners of scientism, faith and religion (and especially Christianity) are viewed as unscientific. If you believe the false tenets of scientism, you become suspicious of everything except that which scientism promotes.  You may believe, for instance, in evolution, although it is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, and has been proven scientifically and statistically and biologically and biochemically impossible.  But you absolutely will not entertain the possibility of an Omnipotent Creator God, which is the most probable, and likely, and reasonable explanation for the universe and the wonder of life.
  • Fourth, many things are better and more rationally explained by belief in a Creator than by science.  J P Moreland in Ten Things You Should Know about Scientism, says there are at least 5 things science cannot explain but theism (belief in God) can:
  1. The origin of the universe.
  2. The origin of the fundamental laws of nature.
  3. The fine-tuning of the universe. (It is incredibly fine-tuned for life.)
  4. The origin of consciousness.
  5. The existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. (1)
  • Finally, a firm, logical, scientific, and philosophically sound exposure of scientism may save more souls than thousands of evangelists.  This is because, at this point in history, so many of the benefits of science are easily seen (for example cellphones, satellite weather, air-conditioned vehicles and homes), and are so much depended on, that much of society has come to believe that even sloppy science is better than meticulous faith.   This is of course, not true.  In fact, sloppy science is not science at all, because it is only by the rigorous application of the scientific method that scientific advances are made. Practitioners of scientism are fare more like faddish cultists than serious scientists.

But Scientism is not rigorous.  Scientism is not science.  Scientism is not even good philosophy.  It is by all definitions, and at all levels, a personally and societally destructive phenomenon.  It must be addressed by pastors, real scientists, and real philosophers at every opportunity and exposed for the false teaching it really is.

Or as written by Thomas Burnett at the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences, “It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.” (2)

(1) https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-scientism/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=630f94d382-20180922+-+General+-+Scientism+and+Secularism&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-630f94d382-290916097

(2) http://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism

Chapter 14: The Ethics of Lemmings

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Chapter 14 of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Other Fables, by A N Mack MD

Part I

an·ti·thet·i·cal

ˌan(t)əˈTHedək(ə)l/
adjective
1. directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.

Some things can’t co-exist.  Like the immovable object and the unstoppable force.  Like the light in a totally dark room. Like belief in evolution and accepting scientific reason.  The practical application of scientific principles is antithetical to a belief in evolution.

But you say, “I thought science had proved evolution.”

Let’s start with a little history. Prior to Einstein’s wonderful discoveries, most scientists believed in a created universe.  Then Einstein himself believed not in a Big Bang, but in a static, eternal universe.  After that, we have seen a whole parade of theories, with expanding, shrinking, vacillating, and bouncing models for the universe.  Currently, most scientists believe in a 14 billion-year-old expanding universe, but they have to make massive adjustments to the data to support their claims. The status of cosmology is constantly changing.  If that sounds like the science of cosmology is not settled… it is because indeed, it is not.

Interestingly, the current crop of atheistic scientists will say science is incompatible with religion, and especially with the Bible. Yet many of the most influential scientists of the past were Bible-believing Christians.  These included Isaac Newton (mathematician, astronomer and theologian), Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method), Robert Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), John Dalton (atomic theory), Gregor Mendel (father of modern Genetics), and of course Lord Kelvin (who laid the foundations of physics). Perhaps you, like many, believe that we know so much more now, that we cannot any longer believe in “fairy tales” like the Bible.  But what if it is the other way around?

Scientific beliefs, since they are always based on the latest newest technology, frequently change.  They vacillate.  They adapt and they adjust.  Old theories are tossed out like garbage, like dirty, smelly, old socks.  The new is always embraced and trumpeted to the public as though it were Eternal Truth. But therein lies the rub.

If “Truth” is just the latest research news, it is never a firm foundation.  It is undependable. Untrustworthy. If we depend solely on the latest scientific finding for our definition of Truth, our foundation is pretty shaky. You can guarantee that the scientists of the next generation will look back at us and wonder “How could they have believed that to be scientific? We know better now!”

If we choose to base our understandings of the meaning of life and the origins of the universe on science, then we should be absolutely certain that the scientific foundations of our beliefs are 100 percent firm.  There should be NO room for doubt.  Zero tolerance.

I can say with absolute certainty that the scientific foundations of modern science are not that firm. Scientists disagree on the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether the earth is at the center of the universe, how big the universe is, and how and when the moon was formed.  Scientists also disagree vehemently on whether evolution can occur, how it could occur, and if there is any evidence it has occurred. Scientists disagree on whether light is a particle or a wave, and on what causes gravity.  Scientist have no idea what causes magnetism. Scientists have no idea what “dark matter” is, or what “dark energy” is, or whether they really even exist!

Still, in our schools and universities, with missionary zeal, our students are told there is no God.  They are told the Bible is a fairy tale.  They are told we are evolved from the apes.  The foundations and underpinnings of their Christian faith are systematically destroyed.  And our youth flounder and lose their way in heartbreaking numbers. Many look for answers in drugs or alcohol.  Others look for wealth, or power, or success. But one thing they are encouraged NEVER to do is look to God’s word, the Bible. This is ridiculed and has supposedly been “proven” (by virtue of the latest fads in science) to be false. (And all this in spite of thousands of recent scientific, archeological finds which actually support the Bible.)

But unfortunately, our youth, as well as our entire society, are paying the price for believing the irrational, wild musings and imaginations of secular atheists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. These ungodly men have pushed their agenda with eloquence, but not with science.  They have had a huge following, but that following has not freed society from the chains of belief in God, as they promised.  Instead we see millions more now suffering under mental illness, drug dependency, sex addiction, and gender confusion.

Nevertheless, one thing is logically and scientifically certain amidst all the uncertainty.  Evolution did not happen. I believe it has been proven scientifically and statistically to be an impossibility.  Not a single atheist has an explanation for the origin of life, other than to say “There is no God so it must have just happened somehow.” (Not so scientific after all.) For that matter, no scientist has ever offered any reasonable explanation for the origin of matter.  “There was a big bang, or a quantum fluctuation, and it happened.” (Not at all scientific either, when you get down to it.)  Moreover, the inane suggestions of secular scientists that the big bang occurred as a result of a “quantum fluctuation” are not really explanations at all. A fluctuation in what?  Nothing multiplied by anything (even a fluctuation) is still nothing. If nothing existed, what fluctuated?  And by what laws of non-existent physics was it controlled?  In fact, when seen objectively, the Big Bang is patently ridiculous. (Much more on this to follow in chapters 17 and 18.)

John 16:13  But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Part II

Modern atheistic scientists behave in a manner that is a lot like the stories told of lemmings.  What does a lemming do when it sees there is a cliff? It keeps going, obediently falling into line behind the leaders, until it plunges into the ocean. What does an evolutionist do when he finds abiogenesis (life magically appearing from non-life) is impossible?  He makes up a scientifically and statistically impossible story about lightning and “pre-biotic soup”, and keeps believing in evolution.

What does a lemming do when he sees the ocean?  He keeps going, runs over the edge, and into the ocean. What’s an evolutionist do when he finds the geologic strata are much more readily explained by a Global flood and are NOT by theories of hundreds of millions of years?  He doubles down on “his side” of the evidence and keeps on believing in spite of the facts.

In all the old stories, the lemming keeps on running to its own death and destruction, in spite of evidence it may see directly in front of its own eyes.  In the same way the evolutionist keeps on believing that his way is the only way to interpret the facts, even when the Bible often provides a better explanation for the findings in geology, biology, astronomy, and physics than uniformitarian assumptions (the belief that all rates of biological, geological, and chemical change have remained constant) .

How does an evolutionist explain the origin of the universe?  He makes up a term he calls a “quantum fluctuation”.  (There was nothing, then for some reason something happened to nothing and everything appeared.)  Now I challenge any “scientist” to explain what that is, where it came from, and why anyone should actually believe that over the Biblical account of creation!

The one thing that unifies modern atheistic scientists is their complete refusal to accept the possibility of a Creator God.  So is it any wonder that their often irrational, unscientific, biased article and opinions always support the outcome that there was a Big Bang and suddenly “it just happened”.  They believe there was no God, no Creator, because human scientists in their pride have said so.  And so some of us have believed, at least until the facts about the earth and life and genomics and geology began to show HUGE holes in their logic.

Stephen Hawking himself said, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” (1)  And he also said, “Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” (2)  Yet atheistic scientists for the last 100 years have consistently turned away from any new knowledge, fact, or scientific finding that does NOT support their presuppositions about the origin of life or the Universe. In this, modern science has condemned itself, by not applying the scientific method fairly and rationally to all areas of study. This is not the behavior of scientists, but of religious fanatics.  These are not scientists who happen to be atheists.  They are ATHEISTS who call themselves scientists!

I would think Hawking’s seemingly rational quote “One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance,” would have attributed a little more humility to the man.  But instead, he pretended he KNEW when and how the universe began, and postulated in a grandiose fashion that “There is no heaven or afterlife” (as though he KNEW this).  He bragged, “My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.” (3) How insanely prideful and conceited! How tragically misplaced was his faith in scientism!

And this is one of the men modern scientists consider a hero?

And yet like lemmings, professors at colleges and universities gleefully follow his inane and unprovable “scientific discoveries” as though they are “the gospel truth”… and sadly, perhaps to the atheist community they are.

(1) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_447556

(2) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_378304

(3) https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stephen_hawking_124516

(4) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/we-still-dont-have-the-technology-to-verify-stephen-hawkings-big-ideas

Part III

Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problem. They are, quite honestly, unethical.

Perhaps they can be forgiven their lack of ethics, because it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that men should be ethical.  If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs.  We may lie, steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive.  That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.

Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions.  One moral choice is just as good as another.  Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well. Morality is meaningless, futile, empty, and vain.

However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old.  They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2)  Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact, and it is indeed the foundation for all study of biology and the life sciences.

Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently.  The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation.  The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis.  So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science.  They prefer talking points to honesty.

In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists.  The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why?… because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator.  But what about their version of “creation”?

Atheists accuse Christians of having “closed minds” when it comes to creation.  But what about the Big Bang hypothesis?  Is it really scientific? Let’s examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.

  1. Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded?  No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
  2. Can we be sure that A causes B?  No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred.  They do not know where or when or how or why it might have occurred.  In their own writings, we can find much evidence of their doubts and disagreements. So we cannot be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
  3. Falsifiability.  Can the theory be disproved?  Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
  4. Can the principle be replicated in other studies?  Of course not.  No one can replicate the Big Bang.  If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only.  Never again to be “recreated” by humankind or by nature.
  5. Is the evidence as strong as the claim?  The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared.  Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing. Nothing fluctuated is still nothing. In fact a fluctuation is something, so it falsifies the entire process anyway!
  6.  Occam’s razor. (Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.)  Yes.  God created the heavens and the earth.  Simple.

So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails!  It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH.  And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story.  And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)