Atheism, Darwinism and denial of reality

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”,

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The argument needs to be restated more honestly like, “It looks designed, but my metaphysics says it can’t be ’cause there’s no designer. Therefore, chance and necessity, evolution, must have done it”. Evolution of the gaps.

This kind of argumentation is everywhere to be found in the atheistic Darwinian literature.

So what do they do to sound “scientific” while actually promoting mere foolishness? Easy. They invent another just-so story style argument.  They accuse the IDists or creationists  of “arguing from ignorance” or arguing from incredulity.  But, accusing an opponent of a logical fallacy is not an argument in itself. So that gives no advance to them at all in supporting the stories with evidence.

This tactic usually sounds something like this, “We don’t really have a clue how this could possibly happen and certainly no god is needed therefore here’s a story… perhaps this and perhaps that and um, if you don’t swallow the story I just made up well you’re just being ignorant and incredulous” – intellectual, psychological extortion.  Then they will cite some evolutionary study that shows some minor piece of adaptation and claim its a major proof.

So is the IDist really arguing from ignorance or incredulity? Of course not. Whether he realizes it or not he is in fact arguing from physics and more precisely from a form of statistical mechanics.  See my short article here.

Back to Dawkins’ statement, a quick and simple analysis:

  • How does Dawkins know this? A: He doesn’t. It’s fantasy passing as science.
  • It’s pure metaphysical presumption. Dawkins assumes there is no designer and then, without any thought of actually proving it, makes a bold but empty declaration, a bare unfounded assertion.
  • If anything object or system with a function looks like it was designed for a purpose, why should one assume it was not? That isn’t science, that is metaphysics [religion] and in Dawkins’ case, wishful thinking. And it’s bad science at that.
  • Why is something that has a function that accomplishes a distinct AND useful result not to be assumed to have a purpose and therefore a design? There is no valid reason.  Indeed, neither do we ever see any offered.

Thus we see that Dawkins, while a master story teller, is a very poor logician or thinker. So what does he, and his many disciples, do when confronted with the facts of this? Well they all begin the “shake a rubber chicken” dance, while blindfolded, chanting, “I see no proof of God!”.

It gets worse believe it or not. From no less than DNA discovery Nobel laureate Francis Crick:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” – Francis Crick

Gee, I wonder why biologists must keep this in mind. Isn’t it obvious that he would never have said this if the design was not so conspicuous that it intrinsically contradicts the biologist’s Darwinian indoctrination?  If anything is clear then that much is clear.

This is exactly the same “do not go where the evidence leads if it doesn’t support materialism” mentality of Dawkins’ “designoids”.

Indeed, why on earth invent “designoids” if the appearance of design is not so overwhelming?  The implications of his needing to invent designoids are obvious. Yet overwhelming as it may be, it cannot be real design because the metaphysics of these men requires it!  Their religion requires denial of it, else they must convert to something other than materialism; and heaven forbid the poor souls from having to man up and do that! My goodness, it would ruin their entire false sense of security in atheism. It would also ruin their careers as professional atheist evangelists.

That’s the real vain religion for ya. That’s blind faith. The great atheist god Nothing, is supreme in their minds.

Advertisements

Is true science Methodological Naturalism?

The following is a typical comment one hears from materialists when defining science:

If we think they originated as s supernatural event, outside the purview of science, then we cannot study the phenomenon. However, if we think they originated as the result of natural events,: chemistry, physics, and contingency, then we can study the matter and learn things in the process, even if we are wrong in our basic assumption.

This is bad reasoning based on either ignorance, mere incredulity or both.  It also precludes all  phenomena deemed as supra-natural from the “purview of science” a priori.

The 1st phrase implies that Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, and several 100s of other historically acclaimed scientists, that founded so-called “modern” science, could not have founded modern science! This is of course pure prejudice at work.
They were nevertheless virtually ALL staunch creationists who clearly believed the “originated as a supernatural event” view of life and the universe.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science!
How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists?! Utterly ridiculous.

I smell a rotten egg in the materialist mindset.

All across the world today we see fanatical Darwinian fundamentalist running around screaming that creationism would kill “real” science. Yet they never stop to explain how that would be possible given that the majority of historical scientists, including the inventors of the scientific method, were all creationists. Worse, the populations subjected to such fanaticism seem to be too dull to see through such an inane and perfectly illogical claim!

Therefore, how utterly ridiculous is any statement that implies they were in fact unscientific! Yet atheists do this all the time and the worst is that they often succeed in convincing others through the use of sophistry and a slight-of-hand conflating and equivocating of terms and definitions, as they do, to confuse those who do not want to think for themselves.

This is just another distortion promulgated in the new atheist propaganda, ubiquitous in the halls of academia these days and now forced as an a  priori qualification of all science!! So who gave them the right to define science anyway? No one.

The truth is that the origin of any phenomenon can be conceived of and therefore examined in some way -no matter what the perceived nature of that origin.
To say it cannot be is simply to claim that we do not have the right tools -yet, or worse, that we’re already assuming no such tools will ever exist.

Thus the materialist view assumes both too much and too little:
Too much of whatever “super-nature” really means.
Too little of how such could eventually be studied.
It lacks both imagination and realism, not to mention humility.

“Outside the purview of science”?
By this the atheist means outside of Methodological Naturalism. That much is clear, yet that much is also mere bias based on metaphysical assumptions about the universe and not on any factual necessity and that, to continue, is mere religion.

One can only laugh or cry that “science” has been defined in such a way as to deliberately interdict anything we don’t really understand yet! But that in itself is anti-science!

What is the purview of science, really?

Within this context let’s test the matter with the following question:

Suppose life really was designed by a or many intelligent being(s)?
Q: Could you, under your definition of  science, detect this?
A: If it cannot (as you claim) then it is lame, inefficient, insufficient and can never lead to the facts!

If “life, the  universe and everything” really was planned, designed and created, and your definition of science prohibits all but matter and energy then your science can never discover the truth that it was in fact designed!
In such a case your science is indefensibly and indeed irrationally exclusionary.

If your idea of science thus, a priori, excludes all possibility of any extra-, hyper- or supra- “natural” (as we understand natural) existences, then you’re applying a irrational limitation to your ability to understand origins – i.e. you’ve already shot yourself in the head and can never discover the fact.

In most cases materialists, that use this biased and indeed twisted version of science,  think they’ve shot their opponents in the head. In fact, they’ve merely debilitated their own prejudiced view of  science irrationally.  In not limiting the abilities of research to nothing but matter and energy, the true scientist, open to teleology,  has also left all possibilities open to discovery rather than forcing all discovery into a small box of materialist metaphysical dogma. The latter which purely religious and not scientific at all.

This methodological naturalism is a crippled  and prejudiced view of the “purview of science” as all the founders of modern science and indeed the scientific method (1st elaborated by creationists)

Here I cite Thaxton on the scientific method:

Method of Abductive Inference

Reasoning from experience and linking cause to effect developed over several centuries and became a recognized scientific method of causal inference. It has been a part of science since the Scientific Revolution, which culminated in the great synthesis of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century. Over the course of the development of modern experimental science, Western culture learned to rely on sensory experience to gain knowledge about natural phenomena. By following experience scientists learned to infer causes from effects, i.e., to work backward from the character of the effects to the cause.

A cause is that necessary and sufficient condition that alone can give rise to the occurrence of a given event. And it does not matter if the cause is natural or intelligent. In the words of David Hume, who gave a formal analysis of this approach, “From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects.” (Emphasis his.) Later in the same book he added, “the same rule holds, whether the cause assigned be brute unconscious matter, or a rational intelligent being.”

The inferential methods we usually learn in school are deductive, i.e., inference from the general to the particular, and inductive, i.e., inference from the particular to the general. There has always been a third method of inference, though not clearly described and formally analyzed until the 1870s, this being abductive, i.e., inference from experience. The method of abductive inference is particularly important in the historical sciences, reasoning backward from phenomena to the cause.

This description of the scientific method is just and open and using such will allow scientists to discover and reason without the straitjacket restraints with which the materialist masters would enslave all scientific research.

It is in fact the abductive method that allows science to discover intelligent causes in any domain and not merely the domains of forensics.

I conclude with a quote from Werner Von Braun,

“While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion–that everything in the universe happened by chance –would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
“The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.” “It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.” -Werner Von Braun, Ph.D., the father of the NASA space Program, in an open letter to the California State Board of Education on September 14, 1972.

 

The Myth of religious neutrality

Two good articles from Cornelius Hunter on why evolutionist’s pretense to Darwinisms’ being metaphysically neutral is a myth.http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/06/why_evolutionists_cant_be_neut.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/07/fear_and_loathing_in_dover.htmlThis seems to be a very difficult subject for people to understand and accept.

Of course, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that Darwinism is religiously neutral and can co-exist with any religion. This is because it is claimed to be purely natural science with no meta-physics involved. Hunter aptly points out that this is untrue.

Just because their religious beliefs are the opposite of others doesn’t make them any less religious beliefs nontheless.

This pretense to neutrality is also socially harmful and hard-line evolutionist propagandists, like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE propaganda web site and organization, know this. That’s why she can send little advisory notes to others telling them to keep their metaphysics in line when propagating their religion of Darwinism. If there are no metaphysical implications or basis in Darwinism why would she feel compelled to do so?

The answer is obvious. Darwinism is deeply rooted in the ancient religion of naturalism with methodological naturalism as it’s “science”.

As Hunter says, “This is why evolutionists are not good at making theory-neutral evaluations of the empirical evidence. For evolutionists, evolution is not something that might be wrong. It must be true.”

The Darwinist high priests have long pulled the wool over the eyes of the judicial and academic communities in this. Isn’t it time they were exposed for the deceivers that they are?

Darwin himself recognized and stated that his theory was not real science. Strange that it is so promoted as such these days by those who claim that Design is not science!!

I’m very glad someone is publishing comments like this. Thank you Mr. Hunter.

ATP Synthase

Image : http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmushroom.gif
Movie : http://www.bioc.aecom.yu.edu/labs/girvlab/Bioenergetics/ATPsynthase.mov

A critically important macromolecule—arguably “second in importance only to DNA”—is ATP. ATP is an abbreviation for adenosine triphosphate, a complex molecule that contains the nucleoside adenosine and a tail consisting of three phosphates. As far as known, all organisms from the simplest bacteria to humans use ATP as their primary energy currency. In each of the approximately one hundred trillion human cells is about one billion ATP molecules.
Without ATP, life as we understand it could not exist. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. All the books in the largest library in the world may not be able to contain the information needed to understand and construct the estimated 100,000 complex macromolecule machines used in humans. Anything less than an entire ATP molecule will not function and a manufacturing plant which is less then complete cannot produce a functioning ATP. Dr. Jerry Bergman

New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living organisms.

ATP captures the chemical energy released by the combustion of nutrients and transfers it to reactions that require energy, e.g. the building up of cell components, muscle contraction, transmission of nerve messages and many other functions. ATP synthase molecules located within mitochondria stick out on the mitochondria, attached to their inner surfaces in mushroom-like clusters. When food is broken down or metabolized for energy, the last stages of the process occur within the mitochondria.

The ATP synthase molecule, has two parts. Recently, scientists in Japan discovered that one part, the “mushroom stem,” apparently rotates within the “mushroom cap.” Last year, a Nobel prize was awarded to the researcher (Paul Boyer, Ph.D., UCLA) who suggested that forming ATP was somehow tied to this rotation, and the prize was shared with another researcher (John Walker, Ph.D., Medical Research Council Laboratory, Cambridge, England) whose team laid out one of two possible structures for the “cap,” which is believed to be short-lived.

In new research, researchers at Johns Hopkins University determined the other structure, believed to be the most common form, in living organisms. The ATP synthase “mushroom cap,” they found, contains three identical areas, arranged like a coil, where ATP is made. Each area is occupied with a different stage in ATP production.

As the “stem” rotates, it creates a powerful internal shifting in each of the three coiled sections within the cap. This shifting provides the energy to cause chemical changes. At one site, the “ingredients” for ATP come together. At another site, they assemble as ATP, and at the third site, the rotation readies the fully formed ATP to pop off the synthase molecule, for use throughout the cell.

A team led by L. Mario Amzel, Ph.D., and Peter Pedersen, Ph.D. used X-ray crystallography to reveal the molecular structure of adenosine triphosphate synthase. Inside, the molecule whirls around several times a second while it triggers production of ATP.

“It’s one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin,” says Pedersen. It’s also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors ever identified.

The researchers captured the image of the ATP synthase cap while all of its sites were in some stage of making ATP, which is essential for the constant recycling of its precursors. Without this recycling, Pedersen says, “people would have to produce more than half their body weight in ATP every day to meet their energy needs.” http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm

So, according to neo-Darwinism, this thing just happened by an unknown series of random mutations + selection?

Watch the movie – it could easily fit into a mechanical engineering class. Genius beyond genius is what is witnessed for any unprejudiced mind!

Could this machine have been evolved from random mutations over time? Suppose this one single example actually did come from such a random process by a billionth of a billionth of a chance. This does not help at all. Recent experiments in yeast have yielded the discovery 247 such nano machines in yeast alone.

Believing in one such event occurring by chance is one thing; believing that millions of such events occurred randomly all over the planet is a whole other story. It is in fact a stastical nightmare, with impossibly huge odds against it.

There are more than likely millions of such machines, working together for a clear purpose in concurrent processes. DNA is a recent discovery in historical time and we know very little about it and the world as of yet. We are just starting to discover just how incredibly complex biological nature actually is compared to Darwin’s time when the single cell was thought to be just a simple glob of protoplasm. One thing is sure – the more we learn the more complex and organized it proves to be.

Anything that requires concurrency in processing to function cannot be the results of randomness. True randomness does not produce functional concurrency.

To suppose that concurrent processing as seen in bio-nano machines developped from random mutations is folly. It ain’t gonna happen. Why not? Because all the 100’s if not 1000’s, if not millions of mutations necessary to arrive at concurrency in functional biological processes require the same, parallel concurrency in the mutations. Mutations do not occur concurrently with any degree of mutual, functional correspondance or dependance.

It’s like imagining an organic computer coming into existence by itself with all the necessary functional parts growing in cooperation – yet without any guiding blueprint as to what the goal is, what the form or function should be, how the end product will look and work or anything of the kind.

Darwinism always assumes titanic concurrent leaps and bounds while ignoring the technical difficulties involved in parallel processing. Organic machines that cooperate with each other in a common goal simply cannot happen without intelligence.

Should science allow supernatural explanations?

This is an assumed or implied question underlying the whole creation vs evolution debate.

The most obvious and honest answer is that science should and MUST allow truthIt must allow whatever explanation best explains the evidence to the highest degree possible no matter whether we like or do not like that explanation.

Intelligent is the certainly the best explanation of the existence of the billions of forms of life we find on earth or whereever else it may be found.  Especially since that life is always highly adapted and complex.  More especially since that life has all the well known, well documented , well tested earmarks of design.

Moreover, the very fact that macro-evo theory is incapable of showing the genetic, mutational pathways by which the speculated evolution is supposed to have occurred – even for the smallest of life forms, not to mention DNA and RNA – is ample reason for rejecting Darwinism as empirically demonstrable truth.
However, I want to point out the truth about this question based on another well know scientific theorem.

Godel’s incompleteness theorum is probably a reasonable answer to the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorem#First_incompleteness_theorem

It’s implications basically say that first-truths, or axioms, (truths that need no proof and cannot be proven but are ture) do indeed exist.

imply put – it is one thing to be provable, and a different thing to be true. Truth outruns provability. It is possible to be wrong yet without being provably so. There are statements which cannot be proven or disproven, but which can still be true or still be false.

So the answer to the topic question is YES. As creationists and IDers have always known long centuries before Godel 😉

quote:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow

Science does and always has assumed certain metaphysicals and they cannot be avoided without also avoiding answers to questions about nature.

Let’s put it this way : If the life forms on earth were in fact specially designed and created by some super intelligence would methodological naturalism (which is what Darwinism is) be able to detect this?  The obvious answer is no since all supernatural explanations are ruled out by default under that inadequate world view.

Walter ReMine discusses this in his book “The Biotic Message”. I haven’t read it yet and I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on Godel’s theorems but it sounds very useful for Intelligent Design proponents, as ReMine states.

Check it out…there’s a gazillion sites out there on Gode’s theorem.

Is there life elsewhere?

I understand the theological dilema that Xians face in regards to this question. But I see all the related fears and resistance as being unnecessary and harmful.

First, who cares what evolutionists think anyway?! “I want to know God’s thoughts”, said Einstein, “the rest is details”.

So what if there’s life elsewhere? If there is then God made them and He can handle the situation with ease. Why fear for what the atheistic evolutionists will say if life is found elsewhere? Of course they will cry, “evolution is therefore true”! They always have no matter what proof to the contrary is revealed.

And of course the cry will be just as unwarranted then as it is now. In fact a discovery of life elsewhere would only make the thing more difficult for them since they would then have another humungous set of phenomena to explain away! How did life start in the said elsewhere? The same questions will have to answered as are already necessary to answer now! They will only have succeeded in moving the questions back one more step and making the answers even more difficult to find in a Darwinian context!

The questions will become much harder for the staunch darwinists, in part, because they will then have to explain how the billionth of a billionth of a chance of life appearing spontaneously, occurred more than once in the universe.

For Xians or theists that is not the problem.

I’ve done a lot of research into the works and beliefs of the church, generally speaking, over it’s existence in the past 2 millenia. And yes, I’ve even looked for what they said and believed about life elsewhere.

Did they mention ufos or aliens etc.? No the terms were not familiar to them. Did they speak about life elsewhere? Yes indeed.

They absolutely did not have any fears or qualms about whether ET was a reality or not. They viewed God as being infinitely capable of both creating and dealing with the whole “life, the universe, and everything” questions without even “working up a sweat” if you will.

Many of the great preachers of the past said things that clearly hinted at a belief in life elsewhere. They did not, nor would have been expected to, use our modern terminologies. No doubt there were also many who did not believe in such possibilities since there have also been periods where the church was extremely man-centered and had become paranoid (as all man-centered organizations do) – adopting an “anti-everything they couldn’t understand” mentality.

Charles Finney in his many lectures on theology often spoke of the atonement as applying to all life in the universe :

“That the work of Atonement was the most interesting and impressive exhibition of God that ever was made in this world and probably in the universe.” “Now, as it can never be expected, that the Atonement will be repeated, it is for ever settled, that rebellion in any other world than this, can have no hope of impunity.” “We have reason to believe, that Christ, by his Atonement, is not only the Savior of this world, but the Savior of the universe in an important sense” “This world is to be turned back to its allegiance to God, and the blessed Atonement of Christ has so unbosomed God before the universe, as, no doubt, not only to save other worlds from going into rebellion,” — Skeleton Lecture of Theology – The Atonement.

Charles Spurgeon also made references to similar things. :

“It may also be, but I do not know, and so I cannot tell you, that we are, in future dispensations, to fill unto other worlds much the same office as angels fill to ours. Jesus has made us kings and priests×and we are in training for our thrones. What if in this congregation I am learning to proclaim my Master’s Glory to myriads of worlds! Possibly the preacher who is faithful here may yet be made to tell forth His Lord’s Glory to constellations at a later time. What if one might stand upon a central star and preach Christ to worlds on worlds instead of preaching Him to these two galleries and to this area! Why not?” – Sermon #1960

We cannot tell but that in the boundless regions of space, there are worlds inhabited by beings infinitely superior to us” – sermon #151

“He had created worlds, I know not how many, but in them all He found no rival. Perhaps all the stars we see are worlds full of inhabitants who worship the infinite Creator” sermon #1786

“I have such a conviction of the power of Christ’s death that if it were revealed to me that on the Cross He redeemed not only one world, but as many fallen worlds as there are stars, I could well believe it!” – sermon #2224

Enough quotes from two of the greatest preachers the world has known since the apostles. Many others could be quoted.

You see, not only did these men of God have no fears or hangups about life elsewhere, but they viewed it as a perfect possibility in harmony with Genesis and with all the more glory to God who created them all by His Word.

They were not under the influence of Darwinism, nor science fiction.

All the “ado about nothing” in the life elsewhere questions is based on fears and insecurities – not on scripture and certainly not on faith in God who is bigger than it all.

And all this talk about UFOs being demons is largely rubbish in my view. They may as well be angels for all we know – and we know spit about our own world let alone the vast universe of worlds that may or may not be “out there”. The evidence for water being found of one Saturn’s moons Enceladus, recently is certainly a surprise for many since as far as we know, where there is water there is also life – at least on our little blue planet.

As for UFO’s, certainly Satan can disguise himself as many things and as the “prince of the power of the air” and capable of “transforming himself into an angel of light” may actually be involved in some of these “sightings” or alleged abductions – who knows?

Nevertheless I would encourage all of you, whatever your position, to be full of faith and courage and stand in awe at your Awesome King Creator who by His Word formed the ages and having “so loved the kosmos, gave His uniquely begotten Son so that WHOEVER believes on Him would have eternal life”.

Let the horizons of your vision and understanding be expanded and blessed with His light on all things.