The Big Question

Introduction

While taking lunch today, I was reminded of an oft-cited explanation by evolutionists about evolution. It usually goes something like "What you learn in the textbooks isn't evolution/the whole story/what actually goes on," or "Researchers know what it is, even if you don't." There are other variations. This is almost nearly in response to, when used seriously, the question "How did DNA, proteins, and such get more and more complex, as in length, number of pairs, etc?"

The question is within the Theory of Evolution itself. I aim to use ToE only in its own terms to show why such claims fall flat, namely that which I posed above. The answer I usually get is "Copying errors mutate into beneficial things to pass on." This seems a decent explanation at first. Let's ignore copying rate and mutation rate for a moment. Even if this idea is true, let alone demonstrable, there's a huge issue. This series of copy and mutate must happen enough over a course of billions of years to what we see today. Let me explain further.

The Example

Say we have some primitive form of life, whatever the in-thing is now for ToE to work off of after assuming first life. Let's say it gets these copying and mutation errors that end up making it something more advanced. The job is not yet finished! If this lifeform dies, the same series, or at least same sort of series of events must happen to the same kind of primitive lifeform there or elsewhere in a beneficial way. This is to say nothing of how multiple sexes formed or how those different sexes must then survive and pass on enough mutations.This then must repeat, going up Evolution's Tree of Life, which brings me to another point.

The Division

In the ToE, there are two thought camps: one that Evolution is progressive, working towards a goal; the other says it's simply random and we're here. Both fail logically. The latter shows by my example above that the explanation is already ad hoc. We're here, so this sort of thing must have happened numerous times. If Evolution is Progressive, this embodies it with certain qualities of intelligence, a sort of transcendence if you will. Evolution can no more work actively towards a goal any more than Democracy. Those things themselves are labels for a process; they describe, but do not guide how those things act. True, both are things done actively, but they do not work as themselves; they are not autonomous. Humans vote to make a democracy happen by electing officials. Evolution adapts organisms for an immediate need. Neither has some crystal ball revealing why those things are being done in terms of the future. (In the case of democracy, humans rationalize their vote, thus guiding it; Evolution has no such backing).

Conclusion

This is the part where I ask "How is it really supposed to work?" What are people like me missing? Even within its own system, Evolution begs the question "How did we get here?" This isn't some knockout punch. If anything, it reveals that ToE and Creationism are both philosophies and have no place in the classroom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

On the Prop 8 Lawyer and "Evolving Views"

Introduction

Attorney Charles Cooper was the one to argue Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. As it stands now, he says his views are changing. This post aims to use this man and his views to make a contrast between oft-confused points while not slamming him or his views.

Why is this News?

First and foremost, his views changing comes from his step-daughter being a lesbian and her future marriage. That is his business and I don't even know what his worldview is. However, the issue in a Christian sense is the difference between loving someone and endorsing what they do. I no more tell a gay to continue in his ways anymore than I endorse the personal use of pornography, or something nonsexual like stealing. On the flip side, we Christians are called to be loving, not discounting anyone since we all have fallen short of the glory of God. Love your neighbor as yourself: your gay neighbor, your neighbor from a broken household, your wealthy neighbor, and the list continues.

The second important point is about standing one's ground. The people closest to use affect us the most. Sadly, many change their morality due to this. I get that people don't want to shake or shatter their family by not being fully supportive. Indeed, it takes a sense of maturity for both people involved to resolve the difference between who they are, how they act, and what morality surrounds them. Again, I cannot stress enough that love /= changing one's morals or approving of something that breaks your worldview.

Closing

By now there are dozens of posts on this matter. Posts making parallels, posts without a loving tone, posts that are about recontextualizing the Bible. I'd like to address that last part. "Evolving," in this case, entails that you are improving in some capacity. If this means you adopt a more loving attitude and actually show it, great! I advise caution on the other hand. If "evolving" means moving past God's Word and what it commands, then quite simply you are no longer following God's commands. In fact, such an "evolution" tends to be humanistic, focusing on the people as opposed to the morality involved or even love. It isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it is still a breaking of a whole that should remain as it is. "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

TL;DR Version: Love thy neighbor, regardless. Christ didn't use modifiers to describe this. Love /= changing one's morals. "Evolving" views must makes sense in the context of one's worldview.

On the Laws of Logic and the Laws of Information , Part 1

Introduction

I recently had a pseudo-exchange with a group of angry atheists. Their arguments had many logical fallacies, but I've decided to allot that idea to its own post. Rather, I'll focus today on part one of  the Laws of Information and the Laws of Logic. Anyone who has to deal with poor debating must always know these. In this case, my opponents did not even know these Laws exist. Pointing out various fallacies in a debate, especially one on the internet, will only get you so far. By following these Laws, dear reader, you will be able to construct a better argument and dismantle your opponent's at the same time.

The Laws of Logic

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is. The second is the Law of Contradiction. It states that something cannot be true and false at the same time. The third is the Law of Excluded Middle, which means something either is or it isn't, thus no middle ground. The fourth is the Law of Sufficient Reason. It states that there should be a sufficient cause to all things that happen. I intend to show how these Laws glorify God and support Him as master of the universe.

The first two laws are self-explanatory and are rarely misused. True, there may be equivocation or backpedaling to make a point more or less clear, but this is the deception rather than the rule. That is, rarely is someone foolish enough to say "A cat is a dog," or "That dinosaur is a real fictional character." Oftentimes the Law of Identity suffers due to relativism. For example, when discussing traditional marriage, Progressive will say society makes the rules. Thus the identity of marriage can be changed, circumventing the Law of Identity. By altering the definitions and/or rules, they step farther away from God and His law. For this reason I suggest staying away from "definitions" of marriage and focus on the next Law. Identity as a Law is harder to use and can be misunderstood by those not in the know.

The Law of Excluded Middle is in other words "Black or white, this or that." When liberals tell me something isn't just an either/or decision, I get a funny feeling. An action is either right or wrong. Special circumstances can exist (death by self-defense is a Biblical one) but those are exceptions rather than the rule. When an opponent tells me "Well, 'gay' marriage is only wrong to you," the Excluded Middle is abused. By selecting levels of "rightness" and "wrongness" a middle is created, a spectrum created. Even when the problem of absolute morality is by-passed, atheists and Progressives still cannot avoid breaking the Laws of Logic. As C.S Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” This violation of Logic is a violation of God's laws as well. The two are inextricably entwined; Logic is a reflection of God. After all, the next Law shows that even the Laws of Logic require a sufficient reason of their own.

The Law of Sufficient Reason is perhaps my favorite. Examples of this application include the beginning of the universe/life and how you get a sandwich. The latter is easy: you or someone else selected the ingredients and made the sandwich, then you came into possession of it. Perhaps a machine actually made it, or a machine selected the ingredients and a person made it. Regardless, either of these lines of reasoning is sufficient for the cause. The beginning of the universe requires a cause. I will not expand upon this particular point as I cover it in a separate post. The Big Bang "causing itself" let alone existing on its own (or the alternative, the eternal universe) are both violations of this law. Life beginning by abiogenesis is not sufficient because it breaks the Law of Biogenesis. Thus atheists in particular cannot invoke their broken cosmology or faith in Evolution as reasoning for how things exist today. Special creation by God fits this Law perfectly, hardly a coincidence.

Conclusion

As a side note, not knowing the science behind how God created (if we can ever discover/comprehend it) is hardly reason for rejection. Indeed, comprehensive knowledge of a science does not make it any more or less true on its own merit. God does not require science to vindicate Him, though as His own creation it reflects His greatness. Nonetheless, just because we don't know how He created doesn't mean He didn't. Perhaps this reasoning will sound familiar to some.

This ends part one, a great example of Romans 1:20. Next post I will talk about the Laws of Information and how they also support God, the Bible, and His Greatness.

The Theory of Evolution and Pokemon

I decided to write this article after reading a foolish YouTube comment. The user associated special creation (by God) to be the same as spontaneous generation. As some may guess, this was in response to a video about Pokemon and evolution. Rarely do I cover two separate topics in one post but I find it is a brilliant opportunity. Due to the outcries over the years about Pokemon, I will cover it first and then segue into Evolution and why it's wrong.

Pokemon is a popular franchise and requires little introduction. I've been asked many times "How can you play Pokemon? It's (anti-God for reason)." There are indeed some ways that Pokemon is at least anti-Christianity. However, I know the difference between fiction and reality so I find no conflict. I've considered expanding on this in an article about Star Trek which is drenched in naturalism. Whether Pokemon or Star Trek, the point is that they are both fiction. Anything that kids are exposed to can affect them, but is Pokemon truly an offender?

I have no degree in child psychology. What I can comment on is the understanding of kids. I highly doubt an average kid is going to see one of his Pokemon evolve and think it happens in the real world. Even so, and even if such a kid ends up believing in Darwinism, I would say that is a lack of good parenting rather than "OMgosh, Pokemon caused that." A kid isn't going to care how or why Charmeleon became Charizard. What the kid does know is his Pokemon can kick more butt! As with anything, if a game, toy, other kids, or anything else is causing problems in a child it is the responsibility of the parents to try to correct it. Whether it takes one good talk, professional help, or anything else I find it irresponsible to simply blame something.

Some object saying you don't let kids watch horror movies because they cause nightmares, so kids shouldn't play Pokemon lest they start to believe evolution is true. These are different things. A fun game with a mechanism a kid doesn't have to care about is much different than a serial killer eviscerating someone. So what about teenagers and adults?

If an adult or especially a teenager chooses to believe something found in fiction, then I find there is no reasoning that actually works to un-convince that person. As a young adult, I don't watch Star Wars and think the Force is something I can manipulate. If someone else chooses to do so that's fair game. Note I don't say it isn't foolish, but people can do so. Responsibility is needed as much here as with kids, except of course in a personal manner. So what about Evolution, as in the Theory of?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution (ToE) is about adaptations over time which claims that life resulted, and supposedly still results, in not only different species, but change at all levels (genus, family, and so on). Most Pokemon evolve into a form more along the lines of metamorphosis or growing up. For example, Charmander becomes taller, leaner and gains actual claws when it evolves into Charmeleon, and Caterpie evolves like a caterpillar's life cycle. I see no connection between Darwin's ToE and Pokemon's "evolution" except how the term evolution is used.

You may be asking "How does this challenge the Theory of Evolution?" It doesn't, terribly. It's the comment I want to focus on after I clear up some misconceptions. First, "evolution" is a weasel word equivocated by those supporting it. If speciation and the accumulation of traits is "evolution," then as a Creationist I also "believe in evolution." I submit that God created His creation to be able to adapt rather than die out as soon as change is needed. Second, the ToE has not been "proven." There is no proof of a "common ancestor" and the odds of life spontaneously arising and rearranging itself is foolhardy at best. Mathematicians much greater than I have calculated the odds. They aren't promising.

That said, is God creating an instance of spontaneous generation? Obviously not. God exists outside of His creation. True, He is "generating" something, but it is not spontaneous. It is planned and intelligent. There is actually little more to add to this point. Some YouTube user used faulty reasoning. What's important here is a few more details on the matter of spontaneous generation. Many Creationists (myself included) state that the Evolutionists hold that a "common ancestor" itself or the "building blocks" (proteins, etc) formed spontaneously and/or without guidance. Evolutionists now have a counter: they claim it is an instance of abiogenesis, known now as chemical evolution.

So what is abiogenesis/chemical evolution? It is the arising of life from non-living material. Thus it is different from spontaneous generation in that something has to exist first for abiogenesis to work; it's simply not alive. How plausible is this? The infamous Miller-Urey experiments come to mind. Basic components of life were made by sending electricity through a tube of elements. While this is a simplified synopsis, the important detail is that the tube was compartmentalized so that the now-living matter would not be interacted with (and thus destroyed) by the other components. Obviously, this would not work in real life. Other theories exist, some about clay, some about deep-sea vents, and the list goes on.

The problem is that even if an amino acid did form by abiogenesis, it would need other amino acids. Those amino acids would need to link in a comprehensive way.  Amino acids have a "handedness" where they are "left" or "right." Thus the amino acids without guidance, must link correctly and many times at that. Then a protein must fold into a particular shape native to the protein which may or may not link to another protein. The issue is that folding is done particular to the kind of protein being formed. Thus, even ignoring abiogenesis, it is still illogical to assume a "common ancestor" formed by chance.

If you don't believe me, being the Creationist that I am: (1) take the odds of an amino acid spontaneously forming (optional); (2) find the number of amino acids needed for a single protein chain and multiply by 1 over that number; (3)check the odds of having enough acids of the same handedness to even link; (4)multiply this by itself the number of successive times the same link must form. This will give you an idea of the odds of a protein forming. This ignores the folding problem. If you don't want to do the legwork, I'm sure you can find it on the internet somewhere. The issue is that the explanation is ad hoc, literally "(Chemical) Evolution of the Gaps."

Most Evolutionists are of the mind "We're here. God definitely didn't do it. So whatever theory we come up with must be true, unless a better one comes along." Not only have they done nothing but be ignorant to the possibility of God, but they have taken a leap of faith of their own. "Chemical evolution happened and everything else listed here did too and then even more events happened after even if it has far less than 1% of occurring."

I once did a presentation on infinity. I found that the only way for the evolutionist to be sure s/he's correct is if there are infinite chances. No amount of "Deep Time" can make up for it. Even with a vast amount of time it doesn't mean life would arise. Taking God out of the picture is ignoring biblical prophecy, design, the age of the earth, and other topics I have yet to cover. A believer in Evolution must have even more faith than I; they must listen to the scientists and even more objections than the few I pose here.

But isn't Evolution science? No, not at all. Historical events cannot be repeated. Even putting the astronomical odds aside, no one can go back in time and see how everything started. Thus believing in the ToE is done by faith. Remember, there's a difference between what we see in adaptation and speciation and the ToE.

There are many more factors contributing to the faulty reasoning and faith base of Evolution I will cover as time goes on. I would hope that nothing else is needed to show how the ToE is faith-based and not science. If you enjoyed this post, leave a comment and check back for more posts. If you didn't enjoy the post, leave a comment saying why. Questions, challenges, and comments are welcome so long as they remain civil.