Part III - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods Before Me
Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution-Part 3.mp3
We come finally to part 3 of this survey of Evolution. What evidence supports the theory and what is the nature of that evidence.
Can something come from nothing? There is no field of thought where it is considered rational to do so, yet to believe in the theory one must do exactly that. The theory requires its followers to make many leaps of faith; to believe something came from nothing for example. But evolution requires a second leap of faith in that order came from disorder. We have the very opposite of a quality arising from the quality itself. Thirdly, to be an evolutionist you must believe that orderly, inorganic matter had life sprung from it. And fourthly, variations arose from the same identical factors. Once there was a blob then the blob had X, Y and Z act on it to give it life. The evolutionist then says that the blob is no longer a blob, but now it’s carrots, tigers, germs and human beings. In the original state of things all the factors were the same, but in the output of things we get variations. Now I want to know, how do you go from common factors to varied consequences? It is utterly un-scientific to argue in this way. If all the factors were the same in the primordial blob then nothing is going to change in the primordial blob. And if it changes then it will all change. We reason by means of types; the same type of factors causes the same types of results. Is this not one of the laws of science; something has the same type of thing happen when the same type of thing is brought to bear on it. Where would science be if that were not a fundamental presupposition of the natural world?
So Evolution requires four leaps of faith:
1. Something came from nothing.
2. Order came from disorder.
3. Life sprang from non-life.
4. Variations came about from identical factors.
But there are even more leaps of faith for the evolutionist: Somehow this blob turned into a humanoid form (as opposed to a microscopic germ) and then intelligence arouse from non-intelligence. We have a creature without intelligence, not self-aware and without the ability to reason from A to B to C, but now we have a creature capable of all that; how in the world is that possible? Finally we have morality from what is non-moral. If evolution were true, why did human beings become unsatisfied with what is the case and start making judgments on what ought to be the case? Where did we get the concept of, you ought not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife? I would like an explanation of the evolution of morality.
So what am I getting at? To believe in evolution you must have incredible faith. Greg Bahnsen said once that, “over and against the evolutionist I feel like a complete rationalist as a Christian. I look at this world and I have to say that it was an intelligent God who made all these things. The evolutionist comes along and says man that’s nothing, we don’t have a god, we don’t have any of that. Something came from nothing, life came from non-life, and intelligence sprang from non-intelligence…” In all fairness, the evolutionist does not come out and admit these things, but this lack of evidence and logical cogent support for what he proposes makes his propositions just that, leaps of faith. Now I will be more than happy to eat humble pie and present a part four of this series where I will recant all my pronouncements, if one of you can just give me some logical cogent answers to my questions.
I want to ask another question; what advantage or function is a partially developed sex organ? Allegedly evolution takes place through a series of small incremental changes and that these changes occur over long periods of time; the more advantageous changes are allowed to continue. By the way, I would like an explanation as to what or who is making these intelligent decisions. I would like to know, what does a partially developed genitalia do for you? Can you propagate the species; is it advantageous from the standpoint that it gives pleasure? What is the advantage? How could we have survived in this state given the fact that we couldn’t survive in this state now. If there are any malfunctions in the reproductive system today, couples won’t have kids. How does the evolutionist account for the evolution of the reproductive system? But it gets even better: How did organisms reproduce in their infancy; probably by cell division. Back then billions of years ago when the primordial Blob was struck by lighting (I have read this before and granting the evolutionist absurd request that we give them something came from nothing as an assumption), Life began but that life was simple, single cell organisms and they reproduced how; well by cell division. Now let’s jump to the end of the line: Men and women reproducing in the way we know babies are made today. I would like an explanation as to how we got from cell division to copulation. Why did the different sexes arise out of the blob and why we aren’t all girls or all boys? How did the male and female know what to do to reproduce? But again, it gets even better. How long is a woman capable of reproducing? I’m going to be very generous and say one hundred years (it’s actually closer to 50 on a good day. A woman in India just had a son at age 72). Remember that evolution took place over billions of years and so I ask, is it reasonable to believe that in the span of billions of years, a female humanoid developed a reproductive system while at the same time (within the span of 100 years, but more like 50 for this fertile humanoid female), a male humanoid developed a complete and compatible reproductive system and had a baby? Do you believe that? That is preposterous! Let me put it this way: A female with a fully developed reproductive system evolves in say 200 million B.C. She is now standing around saying to her self, “sure wish I had a man right now to impregnate me. I hope one comes along in the next hundred years or before I die so that we can do this.” Then low and behold, within the span of her being fertile, a fully evolved man taps her on the shoulder and says, “here I am babe let’s go take care of some pressing business.” If you believe that, I have an oil refinery that I would like to sell you. And yet the evolutionist would have us believe this is how you and I came to be.
What about the human eye? I’m not going to go into all the details about how intricate and interdependent all the components of the human eye are, instead let me read you a short article from an evolutionist explaining how the human eye could have evolved:
The eye of a vertebrate or an octopus looks so complex that it can be difficult to believe it could have evolved by natural selection and it has traditionally been an argument against Darwinism by advocates of creationism.
Nilsson and Pelger simulated a model of the eye to find out how difficult its evolution really is. The simulation does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. It takes light-sensitive cells as given and ignores the evolution of advanced perceptual skills (which are more a problem in brain, than eye, evolution). It concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin's critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts. Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time. This fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages. The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature.
How long did it take? The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octopus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy.
The work illustrates the value of building models to test our intuitions. Darwin referred to the evolution of complex organs by natural selection as presenting a problem for the imagination, not the reason. This computer study supports his remark.
Seems plausible, what’s the problem? First of all this is an argument for a type of intelligent design. It is interesting that in all the saber rattling against intelligent design, those who are against it end up arguing for intelligent design simply by reintroducing it under a different identity, mainly natural selection. I want you to notice something, in the model there was a computer making decisions as to what constitutes an advantageous change and eliminates changes that are of no benefit or of negative benefit; where does anything like a computer program and a programmer exist naturally in nature? In another article I read in favor of evolution, the writer tried to show the myth of impossible odds in the theory. The writer gave the illustration of trying to get sixes to appear on 20 individual dice. It is false, the writer said, to think that evolution tries to get sixes to appear on all twenty dies with a single throw. What is more accurate is seeing what the odds are if while throwing the dies you allow the sixes to remain on the floor, pick up the non-sixes and re-cast them and so on and so forth. This is how we are told evolution works so that long odds become more of a sure thing. It’s no longer a question of if the human eye will form; it is now a matter of when. Seems like an intelligent design buster that is until you realize that picking and choosing non-sixes requires intelligence similar to the computer program and programmer. There is nothing like a person picking out the undesirables, out there in nature now is there? What good is half a heart? What good is half a lung? I’ll do you one better, what good is a whole heart without a lung or a whole lung without a heart? Now we are supposed to believe, based on the theory of evolution that pure chance guided the process whereby the vast majority of animals require a fully functional heart and lungs to work together. The fact of reality testifies to the impossibility of evolution of species through small chance mutations, given that animals need big changes to occur instantaneously. We need big full hearts and big full lungs now. There is so much more to say on that but I want to proceed to my final point here and perhaps the most devastating, because evolutionists work very hard to hide this fact:
The fossil records contain lots of proofs of species turning into other species right? Wrong! The fossil record contains no and I repeat no taxonomic record. Taxonomic gaps in the fossil records means gaps indicating the series of changes from one organism to another. Please follow me here; you may have believed in the past that the intelligent design people have a body of evidence but that the body of evidence for supporting the evolutionist is so vast and overwhelming that we just can’t compete. I am saying that the evolutionist have NO proof of speciation in the fossil record. And yet they claim science and beat us over the head with it at every turn.
So then, why should I as a rational human being believe in evolution? There are no facts to support the theory; the theory was invented as an anti religious dogma and it lacks logical cogent support. And so I feel justified in reasserting what I said at the start of this series and that is, the theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that at every point where science calls upon a theory to be scientific, the theory fails. And even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; show me where I’m wrong. I hope you found this work informative and helpful, even if I was unable to persuade you. As always I want to hear from you and until next time, good bye.
©2008 DANIAN MICHAEL HERON
Evolution-Part 3.mp3
We come finally to part 3 of this survey of Evolution. What evidence supports the theory and what is the nature of that evidence.
Can something come from nothing? There is no field of thought where it is considered rational to do so, yet to believe in the theory one must do exactly that. The theory requires its followers to make many leaps of faith; to believe something came from nothing for example. But evolution requires a second leap of faith in that order came from disorder. We have the very opposite of a quality arising from the quality itself. Thirdly, to be an evolutionist you must believe that orderly, inorganic matter had life sprung from it. And fourthly, variations arose from the same identical factors. Once there was a blob then the blob had X, Y and Z act on it to give it life. The evolutionist then says that the blob is no longer a blob, but now it’s carrots, tigers, germs and human beings. In the original state of things all the factors were the same, but in the output of things we get variations. Now I want to know, how do you go from common factors to varied consequences? It is utterly un-scientific to argue in this way. If all the factors were the same in the primordial blob then nothing is going to change in the primordial blob. And if it changes then it will all change. We reason by means of types; the same type of factors causes the same types of results. Is this not one of the laws of science; something has the same type of thing happen when the same type of thing is brought to bear on it. Where would science be if that were not a fundamental presupposition of the natural world?
So Evolution requires four leaps of faith:
1. Something came from nothing.
2. Order came from disorder.
3. Life sprang from non-life.
4. Variations came about from identical factors.
But there are even more leaps of faith for the evolutionist: Somehow this blob turned into a humanoid form (as opposed to a microscopic germ) and then intelligence arouse from non-intelligence. We have a creature without intelligence, not self-aware and without the ability to reason from A to B to C, but now we have a creature capable of all that; how in the world is that possible? Finally we have morality from what is non-moral. If evolution were true, why did human beings become unsatisfied with what is the case and start making judgments on what ought to be the case? Where did we get the concept of, you ought not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife? I would like an explanation of the evolution of morality.
So what am I getting at? To believe in evolution you must have incredible faith. Greg Bahnsen said once that, “over and against the evolutionist I feel like a complete rationalist as a Christian. I look at this world and I have to say that it was an intelligent God who made all these things. The evolutionist comes along and says man that’s nothing, we don’t have a god, we don’t have any of that. Something came from nothing, life came from non-life, and intelligence sprang from non-intelligence…” In all fairness, the evolutionist does not come out and admit these things, but this lack of evidence and logical cogent support for what he proposes makes his propositions just that, leaps of faith. Now I will be more than happy to eat humble pie and present a part four of this series where I will recant all my pronouncements, if one of you can just give me some logical cogent answers to my questions.
I want to ask another question; what advantage or function is a partially developed sex organ? Allegedly evolution takes place through a series of small incremental changes and that these changes occur over long periods of time; the more advantageous changes are allowed to continue. By the way, I would like an explanation as to what or who is making these intelligent decisions. I would like to know, what does a partially developed genitalia do for you? Can you propagate the species; is it advantageous from the standpoint that it gives pleasure? What is the advantage? How could we have survived in this state given the fact that we couldn’t survive in this state now. If there are any malfunctions in the reproductive system today, couples won’t have kids. How does the evolutionist account for the evolution of the reproductive system? But it gets even better: How did organisms reproduce in their infancy; probably by cell division. Back then billions of years ago when the primordial Blob was struck by lighting (I have read this before and granting the evolutionist absurd request that we give them something came from nothing as an assumption), Life began but that life was simple, single cell organisms and they reproduced how; well by cell division. Now let’s jump to the end of the line: Men and women reproducing in the way we know babies are made today. I would like an explanation as to how we got from cell division to copulation. Why did the different sexes arise out of the blob and why we aren’t all girls or all boys? How did the male and female know what to do to reproduce? But again, it gets even better. How long is a woman capable of reproducing? I’m going to be very generous and say one hundred years (it’s actually closer to 50 on a good day. A woman in India just had a son at age 72). Remember that evolution took place over billions of years and so I ask, is it reasonable to believe that in the span of billions of years, a female humanoid developed a reproductive system while at the same time (within the span of 100 years, but more like 50 for this fertile humanoid female), a male humanoid developed a complete and compatible reproductive system and had a baby? Do you believe that? That is preposterous! Let me put it this way: A female with a fully developed reproductive system evolves in say 200 million B.C. She is now standing around saying to her self, “sure wish I had a man right now to impregnate me. I hope one comes along in the next hundred years or before I die so that we can do this.” Then low and behold, within the span of her being fertile, a fully evolved man taps her on the shoulder and says, “here I am babe let’s go take care of some pressing business.” If you believe that, I have an oil refinery that I would like to sell you. And yet the evolutionist would have us believe this is how you and I came to be.
What about the human eye? I’m not going to go into all the details about how intricate and interdependent all the components of the human eye are, instead let me read you a short article from an evolutionist explaining how the human eye could have evolved:
The eye of a vertebrate or an octopus looks so complex that it can be difficult to believe it could have evolved by natural selection and it has traditionally been an argument against Darwinism by advocates of creationism.
Nilsson and Pelger simulated a model of the eye to find out how difficult its evolution really is. The simulation does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. It takes light-sensitive cells as given and ignores the evolution of advanced perceptual skills (which are more a problem in brain, than eye, evolution). It concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin's critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts. Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time. This fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages. The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature.
How long did it take? The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octopus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy.
The work illustrates the value of building models to test our intuitions. Darwin referred to the evolution of complex organs by natural selection as presenting a problem for the imagination, not the reason. This computer study supports his remark.
Seems plausible, what’s the problem? First of all this is an argument for a type of intelligent design. It is interesting that in all the saber rattling against intelligent design, those who are against it end up arguing for intelligent design simply by reintroducing it under a different identity, mainly natural selection. I want you to notice something, in the model there was a computer making decisions as to what constitutes an advantageous change and eliminates changes that are of no benefit or of negative benefit; where does anything like a computer program and a programmer exist naturally in nature? In another article I read in favor of evolution, the writer tried to show the myth of impossible odds in the theory. The writer gave the illustration of trying to get sixes to appear on 20 individual dice. It is false, the writer said, to think that evolution tries to get sixes to appear on all twenty dies with a single throw. What is more accurate is seeing what the odds are if while throwing the dies you allow the sixes to remain on the floor, pick up the non-sixes and re-cast them and so on and so forth. This is how we are told evolution works so that long odds become more of a sure thing. It’s no longer a question of if the human eye will form; it is now a matter of when. Seems like an intelligent design buster that is until you realize that picking and choosing non-sixes requires intelligence similar to the computer program and programmer. There is nothing like a person picking out the undesirables, out there in nature now is there? What good is half a heart? What good is half a lung? I’ll do you one better, what good is a whole heart without a lung or a whole lung without a heart? Now we are supposed to believe, based on the theory of evolution that pure chance guided the process whereby the vast majority of animals require a fully functional heart and lungs to work together. The fact of reality testifies to the impossibility of evolution of species through small chance mutations, given that animals need big changes to occur instantaneously. We need big full hearts and big full lungs now. There is so much more to say on that but I want to proceed to my final point here and perhaps the most devastating, because evolutionists work very hard to hide this fact:
The fossil records contain lots of proofs of species turning into other species right? Wrong! The fossil record contains no and I repeat no taxonomic record. Taxonomic gaps in the fossil records means gaps indicating the series of changes from one organism to another. Please follow me here; you may have believed in the past that the intelligent design people have a body of evidence but that the body of evidence for supporting the evolutionist is so vast and overwhelming that we just can’t compete. I am saying that the evolutionist have NO proof of speciation in the fossil record. And yet they claim science and beat us over the head with it at every turn.
So then, why should I as a rational human being believe in evolution? There are no facts to support the theory; the theory was invented as an anti religious dogma and it lacks logical cogent support. And so I feel justified in reasserting what I said at the start of this series and that is, the theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that at every point where science calls upon a theory to be scientific, the theory fails. And even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; show me where I’m wrong. I hope you found this work informative and helpful, even if I was unable to persuade you. As always I want to hear from you and until next time, good bye.
©2008 DANIAN MICHAEL HERON
posted by Danian Michael at
10:54 PM
8 Comments
