web analytics
≡ Menu

The evolutionist’s comical dogma

Here is my latest article at WND.com.  If you would like to leave a comment after reading it, please return here.

{ 14 comments… add one }
  • Phil March 31, 2013, 2:43 pm

    So close, and yet so far away.

    To deny evolution is to deny the almighty power, timelessness, and very nature of God.

    This topic is the only point of contention I have found so far with Dr. Keyes (one of the brilliant minds of our time), and the vast majority of this article a agree with.

  • Maurisa December 24, 2009, 9:04 am

    The arrogance of these self-professed scientists is amazing. Two actual dogmas of science are that not everything is knowable and that some things we know are not in the realm of science.

    Rather than deal with rational evidence for or against evolution, so-called scientists have wandered into mere philosophy when trying to push random causation. A real scientist would not be worried about whether or not God exists and directs the universe.

    Instead, we have charlatans screaming that lack of proof is proof of lacking when it comes to God, but lack of proof is proof of the veracity of evolutionary theory (e.g., see punctuated equilibrium). Both proofs are utterly unscientific and undignified. Since Descartes and Laplace, "science" has wholly dedicated itself to removing any notion of a Creator, which has led to science itself becoming anti-scientific.

  • Derek P. December 24, 2009, 2:11 am

    "Perhaps we need to look at the possiblity something can come from nothing." (Dawg_em)

    Reminder. From that statement I am reminded of an article I once read in Discover magazine. The cover story dealt with the 'big bang'. On the cover of this particular magazine was a picture of what appeared to be just a marble. The caption beneath the photograph read "Actual size of the universe at 10 to the minus 44 power seconds." What a concept.

    Something from nothing.

  • Dawg_em December 21, 2009, 3:47 pm

    I like the latest proclamation from the geniuses who study evolution – "Perhaps we need to look at the possiblity something can come from nothing." Brilliant! I wonder if they have a difficult time deciding which side of their toast to butter.

    Still today the Church is vilified for excommunicating Galileo. Her "crime"? Believing the Earth is the center of the universe because God considers it the center of our "spiritual" universe, sending His only begotten Son to save us.

    I prefer a God-centered scientific inquiry. Without it, you get Marx, Hitler, Sanger, et al. Barabaric eugenicists who see it as their duty to help evolution along.

  • Save Our Liberty December 21, 2009, 11:04 am

    Great article Alan! Let me first begin by saying that the most frightening thing happening currently in our country is the lack of true christian leaders. We have been taught or brainwashed rather that the faith does not belong in the public square. The education of our children regarding the christian roots and biblical economic principals of this nation seems to be our only hope. I fear that the current situation is only the beginning of the ugly dragon rearing its red head. I ask that we all pray daily to the Lord for the fullfilment of 2 Chronicles 7:14 "THat if my People who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways I will hear from heaven and heal their land". Thank you and God Bless

  • gilbertabrett December 20, 2009, 8:36 pm

    I wish you could bury a cash for clunker and get a $50,000 vehicle with no hidden taxes. I would be the hit of the party at granny's for Christmas! Hope you all have a Merry Christmas and pray that GOD will protect us from the "health" "care" takeover!

  • Lloyd December 20, 2009, 10:29 am

    Not to mention the third law of thermo dynamics. If you bury a Ford Falcon no matter how long you leave it, it will never transform its self in to a Lincoln Continental

  • Chiu December 19, 2009, 7:21 pm

    Actually, the origin of organic life itself by any non-purposive process is about as likely as a tornado assembling a fully operational jetliner (which can fuel, repair, and replicate itself) out of naturally occurring debris. But once you have that done, the odds of evolution are more like the odds that squirrels will accidentally fly the plane (or one of its many descendants) to a given destination and land it safely. Still basically impossible, and you certainly wouldn't want to be on any given flight, but not as unimaginable.

    And, let's be fair. As recently as a half-century ago science had no real idea just how complex life was at the molecular level. People back then really thought exposure to radiation was likely to give you superpowers (not scientists, but even they radically underestimated the dangers of random mutation back then). It was widely considered almost impossible that any but the most inhospitable of planets would not have abundant life.

    Today we regard such conclusions–which follow logically from an acceptance of Darwinian evolution–with a mixture of amusement and contempt. Where X implies Y, not Y implies not X. The absence of X-men fighting aliens for control of Earth definitively disproves Darwin's theory of evolution.

  • Stogie December 19, 2009, 2:21 pm

    I once firmly believed in evolution, having learned it in college science classes. In my later years I read books by scientists who do not believe in evolution. It was eye-opening. I hadn't realized just how weak the arguments for evolution are, and how narrow-minded and biased so-called scientists can be when protecting a pet theory.

    Even the simplest living cell has enormous complexity. Evolutionary theorists have not been able to describe a path by which chemicals in a mud puddle or tide pool could progressively arrange themselves in order to produce the simplest cell.

    Then there is the mathematical improbability of evolution. One scientist described it as this: The evolution of man from random events is about as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a fully operational Boeing 707.

    Evolution just doesn't add up.

  • gilbertabrett December 18, 2009, 2:21 pm

    I am still meditating on "Being an American – What Makes the Difference?"

    I do not think most people in America have ANY idea WHAT an American is because they have been given everything. Look at our children. A radio host made a quip the other day about teenage girls having no thumbprints from texting. WHY DO THEY EVEN HAVE PHONES WITH NO JOBS? It was a funny line about an all too sad reality.

    The answer to the above question tells a lot about our society. We are excessive and spoiled. Possibly beyond repair without a very sad and frightful situation occurring in our country on the scale of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined. And that will only keep us awake for the amount of time it takes to get the stock market and Broadway back on course.

    We have not lost direction. We have chosen to go the other way. We tolerate that which we should not because we are told by people who we honestly believe are smarter than us that we are intolerant. Given warning, even an animal is smarter than we are…

    Maybe this Christmas, people across this country should take more than a moment to think about the greatness of GOD – what we have deemed as the right time to celebrate the birth of Christ. Even that is a governmental joke on us. More than a moment to feel good about ourselves because we fed the homeless or purchased a gift for an Angel Tree recipient. Maybe we should come up with a more serious plan of action than to say we are gonna vote people out of office, only to vote another idiot with great memorization skills, a talent (if you will) for lying and mastery of the English language, into that office.

    Did JESUS come to Earth for this to happen in America? What DO we want for the next 5-10 years in this country, much less to leave the next generation?

    Are we willing, at Christmas, to say we are going to tolerate speaking Spanish and worshiping a false god, the black rock of Mecca, all because our "leaders" say we are not a Christian nation and we, as a SOVEREIGN nation and people, are intolerant? All because we want a fake form of peace that we know in our hearts is unachievable as long as we let the weak, uneducated and seriously demented take our country away from our children.

    That is the road we are choosing to take if we allow our country to continually be molded into something our founding fathers would not recognize. Times change but GOD'S precepts and laws do not. If we do not get it together and do it soon, we may be celebrating Ramadan in Spanish before too long…

  • Chiu December 18, 2009, 1:01 pm

    If we imagine "protoplasm" as capable of slowly 'learning' various ways to form the characteristic features and functions of any living organism through 'trial and error', it is easy to make the case that Darwinian evolution is possible. But when examination of the molecular chemistry of all living material finds no such principle in evidence, we are forced to discard it as an explanation for how "beneficial accidents" can advance the order and complexity of living organisms. There is no "blind watchmaker" to be found busily turning random damage to the complex molecular structures into improvements which will benefit the organism.

    Well, there are some who claim that my attention to this point is motivated by an inherently anti-life bias. I would argue that the assumption that living material is fundamentally different from non-living material, particularly in the light of modern scientific evidence to the contrary, is the result of a pro-life bias. It is probably true that I have less of this bias than most humans. It is also the case that the underlying reasons I lack such a bias are readily characterized as evil. But in this case, science is opposed to the naive assumption of the living.

  • Chiu December 18, 2009, 12:59 pm

    Meyer is a wonderful expositor of the complexity and significance of molecular biology, continuing in the work begun by Micheal Behe. But perhaps the greatest hurdle faced by scientists attempting to inform the public about the fundamental advances in biological sciences is that the modern understanding of molecular biology does not rely on any "peculiar characteristics of living matter."

    Darwin (like almost all biologists and indeed human beings throughout history) assumed that biological material was somehow fundamentally different from all inorganic chemistry. The thought that there is some magical "elan vital" within living material which 'strives' to keep life going is a fundamental necessity of Darwinist evolution (that is, adaptation by random mutation and natural selection).

    Modern molecular biology has proven that the elements and chemicals within a living organism obey the exact same physical laws that govern all other matter. There is no magical "essence of life" which alters probabilities in favor of survival of an organism, no special chemical reactions which can only occur when 'life' is present. Thus, if the organism is to have the benefits of the unusual properties we associate with living things, the material composition of the constituent elements is going to be highly ordered, and anything random is going to have a destructive rather than beneficial effect.

    One does not expect a car to fix, feed, or reproduce itself, unless some pretty advanced technology has been implemented to create such functions. That the far more complex mechanisms on which all life is based are capable of doing so cannot be due to any inherent magical properties of life, because the advance of science has proven that, at the molecular level, the presence or absence of "life" does not affect the chemical reactions that occur. If one begins to randomly change parts of that system, this is not beneficial mutation which 'life' can use for adaptation but damage to the underlying basis for maintaining the properties associated with living organisms.

    In theory, once a living organism has been set in motion, with the ability to reproduce itself and repair minor damage by drawing on some effectively limitless supply of energy, it can evolve through random mutation and natural selection. But the threshold of beneficial mutation is damage too fundamental to be repaired and yet not fatal to the organism's chances of continued survival. Without any magical principle which alters the laws of chemistry to be more 'favorable' to the organism, this margin is very small. With the particular mechanisms of life as science now understands it (taken as an already going concern), significant evolution can occur only with periods of time thousands or millions of times greater than the estimated age of the universe itself.

    And the length of time it takes for the molecular basis of life to become established (in a hospitable environment) by blind chance is not even calculable by ordinary means.

    Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." As it turns out, the instruments available for studying biology during his time (chiefly the human eye and imagination) were insufficient to allow him to perceive that the complex molecular structures on which all life is based were just such organs.

  • bk December 18, 2009, 12:21 pm

    Once one accepts the idea that given enough time mud can turn itself into a man by accident, accepting other self-refuting ideas (like 'we need to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt', or 'we must abandon free market principles to save the free market') is probably easy by comparison.

    Americans continue to vote for men that vow to spend more money to corrupt the mind of every child that they can — and make them believe that creation by God is a lie and that accidental combinations of non-living material produced every living thing, including man — though they term it 'education'. And as long as the citizens of this country and its various states continue to do so, they are foolish to think that the God "who created the heavens and the earth" would bless them for endorsing (with their vote) the intentional corruption of the minds of these little ones. It may be that by continuing to cast their votes for leaders who drink the evolution kool-aid (and who will use taxpayer dollars to force the children of this country to do likewise), American voters are tying the millstone around their own necks.

  • Sallyven December 18, 2009, 12:18 pm

    Well said, Dr. Keyes.

    I was reminded myself, after reading Marvin Olasky's recent article on Meyer in World Magazine, of the 'Climategate' debacle. In the Scientific world of Universities and Journals, skepticism of Macro-evolution is treated with a similar disdain as non-adherence to Global Warming.

    But really, it is the difference, in consequences, that is crucial to note: With global warming, whether it is true or not or one believes in it or not, doesn't really matter in the "big picture"–polar icecaps may or may not melt, etc., but life will go on. With evolution–the theory, if used as a reason for complete disbelief in God–the consequences encompass the eternal.

    The new mantra: Separation of Church, State, and Science?

    Theologian Lesslie Newbigin asserts that the dualism of Renee Descartes was one of the primary roots of modern society's intellectual dichotomy (faith vs. science): "[from the starting point "I think, therefore I am," Descartes] moved to the idea of God–but a God who is essentially an implicate of the human idea of perfection, and to the material world which belongs to a totally different order of existence from the mind. In this dualistic world God could influence the human mind, but he could not act upon the material world itself. Many writers have commented on the way in which Descartes' dualism has shaped the whole of our subsequent thinking, creating a dichotomy which runs right through our culture…"

    Nancy Pearcey, in her book "Total Truth" explores this dichotomy. (I highly recommend this excellent book, which is heavily footnoted and an excellent resource.)

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
z-library zlibrary books download project