THE 300

THE 300

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Does God Hate Evolution? (Part I)

Evolutionary theory gained prominence in these last 150 years by permission, no actually by direction of God. What you say? Yes that is true, not that evolutionary theory as it is taught is true, as it is actually the greatest lie ever introduced in the earth. It is the original lie of the serpent in the Garden. Where Satan convinces Eve that God was lying and was actually blocking her from being like Him. Satan is what he is because he is in competition with God.

Satan had always harbored a suspicion that God is another being of the same order, of the same kind as himself, but has somehow managed to convince other beings that they are all created, that God himself is the only non-caused existent being, the fount of the eternal. Never having been created, something which cannot be understood, no matter how hard you try, by the human mind. Just as math instructs us there are things the human mind cannot really understand, such as infinity exists between any two numbers, and infinity stretches out in an unending series of numbers. That the constant of PI has a series of non repeating decimal numbers. And many other mathematical concepts that point to the unknown, the uncreated, the eternal.

The process of our creation is to make us know beyond what angels can understand that we are created beings. God will not suffer another rebellion in his creation where so much pain and damage was done by beings that should have accepted by faith that they were created. Most of the angelic beings did accept this fact; or rather truth, but Satan and one third of the “created,” angels did not. There has to be something in the angelic intellect that can be self-deceived that they are not created, I suppose philosophers could contemplate such things. I suspect it has to do with the nature of eternity that angels have no sense of beginning as they were not created as we are in a universe that has the dimension of time.

Thus the need for a created universe with a beginning to be the stage for beings that are created in time, we know we have a beginning, and death informs us we have an end. Yet the promise of God, if we learn our lessons is that we will graduate to the realm of the eternal. Forever marked in our beings as knowing we were created, but we were then redeemed to live in the eternal.

Scientific evidence is nearly overwhelming now that the universe seems to be peculiarly designed for first conscious life to be sustained and more specifically for human life to appear. This is called the anthropic principle and is probably best summed up by the former atheist and Ph.D. in English and American literature Patrick Glenn in his book God: The Evidence "... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life."

The counter argument to this is that “Well we are here, so of course the universe must have had all these conditions and constants in order for us to be here to write about Anthropic Principle." Peculiarly this is the same sort of argument at the base of evolutionary theory, that repeatedly uses the argument that; “we must have evolved, because we are here and we cannot find any acceptable theory for the variety of species that exist and have existed on the earth." However evolutionists reject out of hand any other explaination, such as special creation, as they protest they cannot know or measure the supernatural. At first glance valid arguments within the narrow confines of the scientific method. However the existence of life is a special case to science, since there are only two recognized methods that human beings can even think of for the existence of life from inorganic material.

Either matter had within itself organizing principles to produce organic compounds, and eventually the assembling together of the incredibly complex chemical machinery within a single living cell, all prodded down the incredible path to life by fortuitous, one in a trillions upon trillions of small chance that all conditions would be met in early seas, just the right amount of radiation as a power source, just the right compounds available in the right concentrations. Yet this is to happen by random (no directing intelligence or supernatural power allowed) and this should in the almost incomprehensible eons of time finally have happened. Once this original task has taken place, the theory of evolution is now used to explain all the plethora of life on this planet, from one celled animals, to whales, to great Sequoias, to dinosaurs, to ants, to you and me.

First, in my opinion this theory shirks its first duty and ought to address the existence of life from the inorganic, since the accepted theory of the existence of this universe shows the progression since the big bang of first only energy, then the congealing of some of that energy into matter, which converts in stars to the multitude of elements of which all things, including life is made. This true evolution of the cosmos is very good science and hardly disputed except by young earth creationists, and perhaps some crackpots here and there. Evidence for the evolution of stars, and galaxies, and finally planetary systems, comes forward in the scientific world day by day, some ideas change here and there, but the grand outline is pretty well known.

Yet when devotees of evolutionary theory try to address how even the first cells arose from the inorganic they look at the math, the possibility that life could have started by chance and they nearly throw up their hands in defeat. Choosing to concoct ridiculous theories that do nothing to answer the problem, it just pushes the creation of life to other planets and spread by alien races, or comets seeding the planets. Still no answer how life arose on the first alien planet, as the probabilities and the math presents the same problem on any planet that is fit for life in all the galaxies in the universe.

This theory called Panspermia was put forth by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, who are astronomers, trying to help their biologist brethren who are faced with the fact that if all the conditions that life would need to begin as a single cell in primordial seas had existed, then the chances that a single cell would have been assembled and “come to life,” is calculated to be: 1 x 101,057,800 That is One with over one million zeros. To put this number in perspective, it would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number.

To make this even more clear it is calculated that the number of all the atoms in the universe, in all stars, planets, in all the galaxies is at the high end 1 x 1081 The number one with eighty one zeros. This is such a huge number for one cell to have come into existence, that even if our universe was thousands of times the size of the one we observe and live in and it was filled with the inorganic elements necessary for a single cell to form it would just never happen. In other words life had to have an outside directing force, intelligence, or it, would never have come into existence.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe explained it this way by limiting the problem in just creating a protein (Proteins are the building blocks of cells). In this instance they are talking about creating a single enzymes (a form of protein used in cells for manufacturing and construction)

Some 1000-2000 enzymes sustain life, and, surprisingly, the variation of amino acid sequences in these enzymes from one species to another is, overall, rather minor, noted Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. “A number of key positions on these chains are occupied by almost invariable amino acids.” The two astronomers scoffed at the “primeval soup” paradigm proposed by Oparinians and Darwinians, which proposes that twenty biologically important amino acids in equal concentrations floated in the primitive soup until struck by lightening to form life. (11) Hoyle and Wickramasinghe considered ten sites per enzyme as crucial for proper biological functioning. What is the number of trial assemblies needed to produce just one functioning enzyme? The answer is in excess of (20)10 , i.e., 20 times 20 times 20 times 20, etc., 40 times The number of trials needed to assemble one functioning enzyme in the primeval soup exceeds the number of all the atoms in all the stars in the whole visible universe, even before the tenth power is reached! declared Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. (12)

Now I say come to life because life, no matter what it is made of is something totally different than even the highest ordered matter, such as crystals. It has to be seen that unlike inorganic matter, life exhibits will, purpose, self direction, and by minimal definition it must be able to reproduce. This is something all together different than nuclear processes directed by physical laws set into motion within the first fractions of a second in the big bang. This is more like a stage was assembled from and by non-living matter, in our analogy we can even say matter had within itself the properties that it will eventually in a hierarchical manner via physical laws inherent in that matter assemble itself into a stage.

But life is the actors on that stage, from whence came these actors? They are not directed by the same physical constraints of inorganic matter. Put a fan on the stage to simulate wind, and the actors by force of will and by mind directing muscles can walk against that wind to do as they will, they are above these physical laws. They contain within themselves a whole new set of laws, far beyond the electro-chemical processes our evolutionists insist must be an emergent property of matter when arranged in sufficiently complex hierarchies, and this emergent property is life, or rather produces, creates life. Do you see the problem? No matter how you talk about forces that give rise to life you are nearly forced to use the words, "create," produce," "bring forth." All words or phrases that invoke a directing something or someone.

Following is just some of the constants set within matter and energy just to get the stage set via the slow, and I will say careful evolution of the universe. This is true evolution, set in motion by God, with all the laws inherent within matter and energy that produced galaxies, stars, gravity, and atoms. Eventually after stars cooked up heavier elements and some of them blew up in super novas and spread those elements into space for second and third generation stars to form that had planetary systems made of these heavier elements, elements that have to have very certain and specific properties for life to exist. The evolutionist plays a shell game with the novice, and with those that are educated in our secular humanistic schools, they put the laws of the cosmos and the development of stars and planetary systems under the cup where they say life evolves. Not so fast. Let us first understand just some of the exacting precision needed to even have the stage where life can act out its drama. It is far more complex and precise than the uninitiated is told.

Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long

There are even more of these physical constants, what scientist are calling the fine-tuning of the universe, the following are excerpts from The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth by physicist Gerald Schroeder:

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.Hoyle sums up his findings as follows: A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,

but instead:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.

3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

We can then add to the above observations by the brightest physicists and cosmologists of our day, who many are agnostic or even atheist and it seems these scientists, even biased against a belief in God, when presented the evidence, unlike their brethren in the life sciences, allow and even exclaim in surprise that it appears someone created this universe.

And now the uniqueness of our earth and the environment on the earth adds to this precise tuning of the overall cosmos. We know that planets that can sustain life must exist around suns much like our sun, for reasons of the life expectancy and radiant output of those suns must exist in a small set in comparison to the rest of the stars in our galaxy. It is also now known that our solar system in order to sustain life must be within a narrow band that circles the galactic center. If in too close to that center radiation and effects of gravity from other stars will not allow stable planetary orbits for the long stretches of time for the preparation of a life sustaining planet.

A life sustaining planet must have considerable surface water; the planet must be in a narrowly defined band around its sun to ensure most of that water stays in a liquid phase. That planet needs to have a very large moon (The earth has the largest moon in comparison to its own size of all the planets in the solar system) in order to produce tidal effects on the oceans that they may not become stagnant. Water must expand when it freezes, one of the few substances that have this property. Water also has many other properties that are unique and go to sustaining life.

A life sustaining planet must have an oxygen atmosphere where the oxygen stays within a narrow range, to high and any fire started will not be put out, too low and life cannot be sustained. The rest of the atmosphere must contain an inert gas as far as oxygen breathing life is concerned. These are just some of the unique conditions that must exist for life to be sustained on a planet. One more mention of the moon. The size and orbit of the moon allowed for humanity to experience total eclipses of the sun, without those phenomena modern science would have had a very tough row to hoe.

I will continue in Part II with the spiritual problems presented by evolution, but it was all intended to come about in the last centuries of our history, for this lie will be exposed and ultimately defeated, in fact it is an assignment given to all mankind to accomplish this task as it is the portal to true worship of God, and a necessary ingredient for the maturing of a human spirit, for as we reject the lie, we receive in ourselves a greater relationship with the spirit of truth, who is the Holy Spirit Himself.


maurice said...

fantastic stuff jehu, well done.
i have been looking for something like this for a long time, where it all comes together in an understandable written essay.
its a cottage atheists nightmare.

maurice said...

the ironic thing is as i see it.
well for people like charles johnson who put their whole faith in science and darwinism.
it looks like science is going to be the thing that kills the belief in darwin.
just like einstein said.

Jehu said...


Truth will win out. God created the universe (check). God created life (check coming soon). It will be verified by science at some point.

The fossil record already tells us life appears suddenly. That species appear totally formed as they are in the fossil record, and then do not change in all their history.

It is because the primary witness to Darwin's (the fossil record) theory tells of sudden catastrophies (The earth was formless and void) and sudden appearance of species that the Evolutionists have frantically invented stuff like punctuated equilibrim, or Panspermia.

Not to mention the growing scientific evidence of the overwhelimng comlexity of even a single living cell, not to mention the information carrying capability of DNA, of which two teaspoons could carry all the information of all species that have ever lived AND all accumulated knowledge of humanity in all our history.

Mats said...

Good job, Jehu!

I'll dwell more often in here.