Asking Tough Questions

This article appeared as a headline on The Drudge Report this morning. It intends to mock Republican presidential nominees who do not worship at the feet of atheist patron saint, Charles Darwin.

While 99.85% of American earth and life scientists believe the theory of evolution to be bedrock fact, 42% of the general public surveyed in a 2014 Gallup poll said they believed that human beings arrived on the earth in their present form.

While the belief in evolution, or lack thereof, may not directly impact whether a given candidate is qualified to become president, the question is regularly put to those who seek the White House. Why? Because some liberals believe it helps demonstrate whether a politician will be guided by evidence in making decisions

The article goes on to show some video clips of republican presidential candidates squirming in their seats when having to answer direct questions on whether they believe that the earth is 6000 years old or whether or not people come from monkeys.

Here’s what I’d like to see. I’d like a reporter to ask those candidates, who support evolution wholeheartedly, these questions about the effects of evolution in their decision-making:

  • Since you strongly believe that biological evolution is true, what intrinsic value would you place on human life? If humans are simply here because of a collection of accidents, why not kill your political enemies and take from the populace whatever you want? Only the strong survive…right?
  • As a strong believer in the success of natural selection, why do you think that the government should provide handouts, entitlements, and assistance to the downtrodden, the weak, and the victims? Are you not abandoning your strong stance of evolution for more of a Christian worldview by helping the weak?
  • There have been national leaders in the past, who were strong advocates of evolution, and because their value of human life was consistent with this belief, they made decisions that lead to the death of tens of millions of their own citizens. Should you be elected, what assurances do we have that you will not make decisions that are consistent with your belief that evolution is true?
  • Should apes and higher simian mammals receive more protections under the law since you believe that people are closer relatives to these evolved “cousins”? Where should we draw the line? Why not include the entire order of primates? Or the family of mammals? Why do you not advocate protecting the rights of bacteria…after all, they’ve been here longer and propagated more successfully? Is it because they do not pay taxes?

I give full permission for any journalist to take these questions and ask…no, press hard for answers to these questions from the presidential candidates. I also give full permission for any candidates who speak boldly to supporting biblical authority to link their campaign website to my creation manifesto, which goes into much detail about the truth of God’s Word and the emptiness of evolution.

UPDATE: Steven Meyer, who is a scientist and writer for the intelligent design movement recently posted this article that is supposed to help conservative politicians answer the question of whether they believe in evolution. The succinct answer he gives is appropriate for the campaign trail:

Reporter: “Do you believe in evolution?”

Candidate: “I believe that organisms change over time, but I am skeptical about unguided evolution.”

I’d really like to see more push-back from candidates, who are asked this question,  to expose the equivocation fallacy that many evolution-believers espouse. Does evolution mean change over time? Does it mean universal common ancestry? Does it mean naturalism’s mechanism for forming all of life?

There has most certainly been evolution…change over time, but as the Bible tells us, there is no change between kinds of animals. The coyote, fox, dog, and wolf probably all came from a common ancestor, which was a kind of dog. Canines have always borne canine pups, and this is verifiable by experimentation. To claim that sometime in the past, an animal had offspring that were of a different kind is perpetuating their naturalistic religion.

Advertisements

Thermodynamics vs. Evolution

The basic concept of the second law of thermodynamics is that things tend towards disorder. The laws of thermodynamics deal specifically with the movement of heat/energy, and the second law makes it clear that usable energy is transforming to unusable energy in a process that is described as entropy. Entropy is a universal process, and the grand theory of evolution claims to run in exactly the opposite direction…from simple order to more complex order.

The standard response from evolutionists for saying that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics goes something like this:

Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.

In other words, they will say that the earth is not a closed system, so the energy from the sun is sufficient to overcome entropy in the sub-system that is earth. The problem with this explanation is that the energy from the sun is destructive not constructive.

Energy from the sun tends to be destructive

Energy from the sun tends to be destructive

Simply adding energy to something does not reverse entropy, nor does it increase its complexity. All of the following scenarios add energy to something, but it is not constructive or a reversal of entropy:

Adding energy…not constructive

Adding energy to this tank did not reverse entropy

 

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …  There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. – Dr. John Ross

But adding energy can be constructive or reverse entropy if there is a mechanism for converting the energy. For converting the energy from the sun into something useful, there is only one known mechanism that can do this without itself being destroyed: Chlorophyll. Chlorophyll (and carbon dioxide) allows plants to convert sunlight into energy for the plant.

The energy released in an internal combustion engine is not usable until you add the transmission, axle, and wheels to the car.

Scientists have even shown that entropy can be reversed as noted in this link. Evolutionists are burning the midnight oil to find ways to overcome the second law of thermodynamics.

Scientists from Berkley were able to reverse the process of entropy,

By introducing a feedback mechanism, they were able to break the natural symmetry of building blocks in solution, and build their “desired structure,” colloidal gold nanorods. The method involved a laser

So, to overcome entropy, you need a laser?

It’s not difficult to lower entropy — not difficult, that is, for an intelligent agent. An intelligent cause can direct its energy to push a ball uphill, when its natural thermodynamic tendency would be to roll downhill. None of this is a violation of thermodynamics; it’s just “outsmarting” it through purposive action. Even though the team spoke of evolution, they recognize that design was the key to getting “the desired” result.

Of course naturalistic means are unable to overcome entropy. It requires an intelligent agent. Thanks God!

 

UPDATE: This article from the scientists at Creation.com further explains the problems (for evolutionists) with claiming that the sun overcomes the second law of thermodynamics with relation to the earth’s ability to produce and evolve life.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

 

Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Quotes About Evolution

  • “Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins.”  -www.allaboutphilosophy.com
  • “More cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution. . .than to anything else.” –Martin Lings
  • “Belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” – William Provine
  • “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” – Richard Dawkins

Monkey_NoSeeNoHearNoSee

Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

All scientists believe in gravity and evolution

All scientists believe in evolution, so you better believe it too…according to the media, textbooks, and evolutionists. This is not unexpected. For at least the last 70 years evolution has been taught as fact in high schools, colleges, and universities. So, entire generations of teachers have heard only the materialist dogma of evolutionary theory, and their worldviews have been shaped to interpret evidence through this lens.

You may have also noticed what happens to anyone who questions evolution. They are silenced or ostracized with extreme prejudice. See Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed for further details.

Even with the claim that all scientists believe evolution, it’s just bluster. Many scientists from organizations like The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International employ PhD scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds and well as biblical grounds.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

They’re called missing links because they’re missing

Missing Common Ancestors. In the evolution story, it is said that humans did not evolve from chimps, both species evolved from a common ancestor. The same story is mentioned for birds / dinosaurs and amphibians / fish and reptiles / mammals and everything in between. The problem is that all of these common ancestors are missing. The actual transitional fossils that have been found are questionable in the accuracy of their interpretations. The pattern of discovered missing links by evolutionists is that a small fragment is extrapolated by artists to fit the exact ancestor that was needed to link two species. See the charts below and you will notice that the common ancestors are missing:

BirdAncestor

ReptileAncestor

MissingDinosaurAncestors

 

FishAncestors

 

 

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Convergence…sounds scientificky doesn’t it?

Convergence. When two are more organisms have the same shape, functionality, or organ, but are not said to have a close evolutionary ancestor, the organisms are said to have experienced convergence. It is used as a scientific-sounding term to hide evolutionary problems of similarities in unrelated organisms. The hope for evolutionists is that if there is a word associated with the problem, then there is no need to actually have evidence to show how the feature showed up, not just once, but many times throughout evolutionary history. An example of this would be that bats and dolphins use echolocation to eat, but they are not viewed as having a close evolutionary relationship.

To say that a shape, functionality, or organ evolved naturally even one time stretches the credibility/mathematics of reason, but to say that the same shape, functionality, or organ evolved multiple times in distinct and unrelated species is beyond belief.

convergence4

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline