Chapter Seventeen
OF GOD AND MONKEY BUSINESS
"Deep river,
I must cross over Jordan...
The position represented here should not be misconstrued as being a defense for shallow
‘big-man-in-workshop’ type Creationism, where a Supreme Being individually crafts each species
independently of each other, such as a toy maker might design individual toys. Indeed,
simplistic religionist views offer little to stir the imagination and even less respect for the
Grand Designer of creation. The scientific truth is that we who peer in with our
microscopes and out with our telescopes here from spec-of-dust Planet Earth into the vast
universal Cosmos of what was, what is and what apparently will be, in reality do not know very much at all
about how it all works, as many modern scientists are only very recently beginning to
admit.
There exist logically, processes and forces invented by and put in place
by a Creator, which apparently cause everything from collisions of great galaxies of stars on
down to changes in species and changes in weather patterns, including the individual courtship
rituals of fireflies, formation of individual snow crystals and the unique characteristics of even much smaller
entities. It remains unclear just how frequently the Master Designer ‘plays’ with Creation
and likewise, unclear how intimately involved the Creator is with what we in the 21st Century
call “nature”, “forces of nature”, “laws of nature” and “natural” changes. Whether or not
modern evolutionary theory is essentially correct in the observationally unfounded and rather
shaky insistence that all life on our planet evolved from a single primary source, does not
excuse the far larger scientific blunder of refusing to allow for consideration and open
discussion of alternate theory and even greater error of blindly attempting to separate
overwhelming evidence of design from Designer. Avoiding evidence of God clearly mirrored
in Creation by using terms such as "nature" and "natural" does not in any way, change the
observable reality, nor is claiming that "God is not a question for science" an example of
anything even remotely honest, let alone 'scientific'.
What is crystal clear to any honest and rational being is that there is overwhelming
evidence of a Grand Designer (or Designers) behind the great Cosmic Grand Design of whatever
exists, the vast majority of which in all probability, our species remains entirely unaware of
(several astronomers and physicists now believe there are probably many universes and at least
eleven dimensions). The evidence for Cosmic Design is far greater than all
other evidence known to modern science combined. One of the greatest misfortunes our
species has inherited here on Planet Earth at the dawn of the new millennium is the ongoing
evolution of a pseudo-science, which seeks to deliberately separate and eliminate Designer from
Design, refusing to examine and even to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a
Creator. Inventing instead a moronic fairy tale, which attempts to explain the Cosmos
through an irrational, propped up, intellectually juvenile and entirely unsatisfying Natural
Selection “self-organizing” hypothesis of complete silliness, devoid of any sanity, rhyme or
rationale as to how and where and why and for whatever reason, it all began.
Would modern proponents of random chance hypothesis (more accurately, outright guesswork
based on evidence-less mythology) consider it rational to theorize how the pyramids of Egypt,
the Taj Mahal and the skyscrapers of modern civilization randomly appeared without any aid from
designers and laborers? Of course not, such 'scientists' readily assume that someone
pieced together these comparatively simplistic earthly structures without even considering a
self-organizing alternative. Yet these same intellectual Neanderthals fail to see the Grand
Canyon-sized black hole of irrationality in attempting to formulate a much less plausible
genesis theory of grade-school 'quacker-jackery', postulating the grand assumption of a
Designer-less universe, propped up by an idiotic contradicting fabrication of laughable invention
entirely devoid of empirical science and any form of logic or sound reasoning!
A strong proponent of modern evolutionary theory once spent several days of emailing back
and forth attempting to convince me that Natural Selection: 1) Is not required to explain
origin---one might reasonably ask what kind of theory pretends it can explain how engines cause
automobiles to move down the road but has no explanation for how the road came into being, who
designed it, or where the material came from that the road consists of; 2) Works by some sort of
mystical self-organization process devoid of any Designer---belief in such brainless
astrology requires way too much acceptance by faith for a jaded soul such as myself to con jour
up; and 3) Is an absolute true fact of modern science---apparently, physical evidence weighed
in the balance of the “scientific method” is no longer the requirement it once was, as even the
most ardent advocates of Natural Selection admit, that due to the postulated extreme time it
requires for even small changes in species to occur, modern inventions of "selective-mutational"
self-organizing processes cannot be proven by any currently known scientific method. On the
contrary, there are several known severe conundrums, including human sight functionality, which
bring into serious doubt the entire theory of evolution by Natural Selection. ¹
Other hypothesis possessing far more rational validity than such a non-provable assumption
as 'naturally' occurring phenomena of "grand design" lacking Primary Cause and which also can not
be proven by scientific method, have been readily discarded. ² But not only does the
shaky superstition and outright guesswork of Natural Selection hypothesis remain, it has somehow
evolved into the fundamental sacred cow of the old time religion of modern science, given
absolute canonization status of fundamental theory, irregardless of what any true
definition of scientific theory supposedly is. As noted in the chapter entitled The Myth of Modern
Science, there is currently no evidence whatsoever supporting postulated evolutionary changes
outside of basic "Family" types (taxonomic category). Notwithstanding, there is
considerable evidence that such evolutionary change may in fact, not take place (see credits and
footnotes below). Any 'scientific' theory proposing such is merely guesswork devoid of
empirical science and utterly fails to meet "Scientific Method" criteria.
Through lengthy email after email it was patiently dissected and pointed out to this lover
of wayward baboon speculation, that if a concrete truck operator were to propose that the
‘pos’-enhanced, air-entrained, color-accentuated and various and sundry other confections of
modern-day concrete, somehow appear on their own by unguided processes that do not require a
plant batch operator to carefully formulate and blend into a mix, the entire Teamster’s Union
combined would be unable to adequately protect the employment of such an obviously deranged and
mentally unbalanced individual, even though it is common knowledge that this particular labor
organization has established an unchallenged reputation for being able to defend virtually any
member brother’s job, regardless of how serious the alleged offense against some overbearing and
entirely unreasonable company boss may be. And yet today it is the unfortunate observable
reality that modern ivory-towered charlatans posing as scientists and educators, supported by the
hard-earned tax dollars of Teamsters and other American wage earners, somehow remain exempt
from normal workplace penalties for exhibiting delusions of manifest insanity.
Some modern atheists claim that one has to first prove that God exists before the “God
Question” can be considered a rational endeavor of science and that the burden of proof rests
on the believer in God. This is a most fundamentally flawed position, however, as all
current theory of science was (at least theoretically) carefully considered prior to being
accepted as valid. Therefore, in seeking to be logical and scientifically correct, the
truth remains the exact opposite. Since all of the known evidence indicates design, God by
default exists until it can rationally be proven otherwise. The
modern scientific method is supposedly an experimental process basing verified conclusion
(i.e., hypothesis to theory) on the observable evidence---not on theorized randomly appearing
elements and presumed "self-organizing" processes entirely unsupported by any known logic and/or
observable evidence. In a true and honest scientific comparison of the abundant evidence
for design weighed against what today passes as scientific fact based on similar indirect and
much less physical evidence (radio waves, black holes and quarks, for example), there is no
scientific fact of the physically unseen more certain than the existence of a Grand Designer or
Designers.
There never has been any acceptable proof presented for atheism and against the existence
of God, or any valid scientific method proof for "selective mutational", self-organizing Natural
Selection. Neither is it remotely scientific to base one’s belief on the unfounded
superstition that there is no Creator, rather than on the overwhelming evidence of “Grand Design”
that proves there is a God as much as we have scientific proof for the existence of ourselves,
the earth, the sun or anything else commonly believed to exist by rational deduction using our
five senses (as well as our common ‘horse sense’ ³ ). Atheism, in order to be
considered true, is required to prove a negative, which most modern intellectuals agree to be
an impossibility of rational logic---not that atheism and rational logic would naturally be
expected to appear (as it were) within the same “advanced” species.
Quite similar to Natural Selectionism zealots, as though they are two peas from a common
superficial pod of nearsighted superstition, there are the onward conservative Christian soldiers of
political, social, scientific and educational misfortune, who roundly and soundly take time to
condemn my own perceived blasphemous soul to eternal damnation, claiming to “accept by faith”
their various and sundry revered canonized and untried in the real world, misassumptions of
specious superficiality. One can endure meaningless and boring sermon after fickle sermon
concerning the alleged difference between religious faith and provable science, expounded on by
dubious theological degree holders of doctrinal sophistry approved by piously revered stain-glass
religious cemeteries for the myopically disadvantaged and otherwise, feeble-minded. Yet
there is very little satisfaction (honestly, actually none) to be found in such convoluted
diatribe of the devout, as it remains, similar to the modern conservative religion of Natural
Selectionism, entirely devoid of reason and without merit toward any known positive benefit,
being based on neither the physical evidence nor the troubling reality of our all-too often,
non-affirming daily experience. *
Meanwhile, back on the other hand of the same trivial body of twisted vicious reasoning, a
great many modern ‘scientists’ of dubious doctorial degrees claim that God is not a question for
modern science, as if they have somehow evolved past the necessity for actual examination of the
obvious reality, that the scientific method is somehow beneath their dignity and consequently,
there is something fundamentally wrong or unscientific about examining evidence for or against
the existence of a Creator. Being possessed of somewhat more open-mindedness than some of
these narrow thinking educational Neanderthals, the late Carl Sagan once stated on public
television: “I would like to believe in God but I fail to see any evidence” (at least he
had the “evidence” part right). To which one might more than fairly respond, based on the
same 'reasoning' of current convoluted evolutionary theory by self-organizing mysterious
processes of Natural Selectionism of extremely doubtful existence and entirely unexplained
origin, “I would like to believe in modern science, but I fail to see any evidence”. (See
The Myth of Modern Science
for more information).
Modern-day astronomers classify the somewhat famous distant galaxy, NGC 2997, as “a grand
design spiral galaxy”. 4 And some of the same scientists who claim to not be able to find any
evidence of a Creator sometimes refer to the Cosmos as the “Grand Design Of The
Universe”. Arguably, most children and other beings of somewhat normal intelligence would
presume, based on most (actually all) known theory of logic, as well as common monkey sense, that
grand design indicates Grand Designer(s). Though given enough erudite and important sounding
degrees attached to one’s name, apparently normal logic no longer necessarily
applies. Likewise, these same scientists who claim to believe in black holes, 5 the invisible spectrum (radio waves,
for example), more than three dimensions, quarks, dark matter, dark energy, vacuum energy,
anti-matter, Natural Selection, self-organization, selective-mutation and various and sundry
other exotic entities mixed in with outright inventions which they cannot actually see, but
“believe” to exist based on far less (and often zero) evidence than there is for a Grand
Designer, continue to argue that God is not a question for science because we can not actually
see the Creator. 6
Although most people, including myself, have no idea who designed the various buildings that
make up greater “Times Square” in New York City, nor have the majority of us ever witnessed any of
these buildings actually being constructed, one would risk being branded a lunatic if he or she
were to propose that the physical reality of Times Square appeared over a long period of
historical time by randomly accidental, selectively-mutating, self-organizing, naturally
selecting processes, devoid of any aid from laborers, carpenters, building contractors and architectural
designers. Nevertheless, many modern theorists claim that the entire observable universe,
containing overwhelming evidence of a Grand Designer from super clusters of galaxies on down to
individual snow crystals and much smaller obviously designed entities, evolved over a long
period of time through mysterious self-organizing processes by “Natural Selection”, without any
input from a Creator being or beings. (There is a rather great mystery as to where the
‘stuff ’ to select came from and how the cosmic blueprint and various processes originate, thus
“mysterious”.) **
Even though no one has ever observed anything on our planet developing all by itself,
whether a living organism such as a cockroach or an inanimate object such as a soap box, many
modern cockroaches posing as scientists and educators of somewhat dubious credentials continue
to spout, from their rather shaky soap boxes and very slippery slopes of convoluted reasoning,
the utter insane nonsense that everything we can relate to and observe with our five senses
came about in a purely by accident, random chance self-organizing fashion. And then of
course, there is the theory of random mutations, which purports to somehow empower the mystical
process of Natural Selection (“and may the random force of science fiction be with you,
amen”). Some modern theorists have largely discarded terms such as “random” and “chance”
in favor of hopefully, more palatable descriptive fabrications, such as “selective-mutation”
and “self-organizing”, to which any normal and rational being, organized or otherwise, would
logically and fairly and most undoubtedly scientifically correctly respond, “what complete and
utter monkey shit!!!”
One of the main arguments in favor of the mystical religion of Natural Selectionism is
mutation theory mentioned above, which postulates that random mutations (i.e., aberrations to
the norm in DNA structure) over a very long period of time cause, through totally inexplicable
processes of self-organization (the existence of such self-organizing processes having less
credibility than Superman, Spiderman, Batman and the Incredible Hulk combined), all of the
diverse flora and fauna on our planet to appear as the grandly designed species that in fact,
all of the observable evidence indicates they actually are. Unfortunately, no one has
survived long enough to be able to adequately measure much evidence for such an irrational
fairytale, so even the most ardent believers in random chance speculation admit that
self-organizing selective-mutation theory remains non-provable by any known empirical scientific
method (or common monkey sense acceptance). The possibility of a Creator manipulating the
processes at the genetic level is never considered, even though the observable reality of design
makes this a far more logical conclusion.
Some scientists argue that there is nothing particularly mysterious about Natural
Selection, but this is a rather perilously postulated position having no basis in the physical
reality, for modern evolutionary theory has no viable explanation of what is ultimately behind
the cause of, or where the blueprint came from for, Natural Selection through self-organization by random (or
"selective") mutations, even if such hypothetical speculations were indeed somehow, the actual
reality. Unlike modern religionist zealots of Natural Selectionism, most theorists of the
past generally insisted that true science must consist of explanation for both Cause and
Effect. (Compare theological anfractuous theory of faith above to see the fundamentally
precise similarity between conservative fundamentalism and modern evolutionary theory by
Natural Selectionism.)
It would appear that, just as theologians have no particular clue as to why a rational
person would believe what the self-righteous claim to “accept by faith”, likewise modern science
has no particular answer as to where Natural Selection itself or the stuff from which to select
came from and perhaps to be fair to theologians, modern science fundamentally lacks primary Cause for
Effect (while those who believe in God do not). In other words, how can Natural Selection appear
or exist if there is nothing from which to select? And if there is something from which to
select, then where did it come from? Did the mystical processes of Natural Selection and
self-organization exist prior to there being any primordial soup from which to select and
organize from and if not, from whence did such processes evolve? How could processes of
design just randomly appear out of nothing from nowhere? How can any logical science
postulate that the grand design of the Cosmos appeared out of nowhere from nothing and began
self-organizing into the observable grand design universal reality all by itself? Can
utterly foolhardy speculation of self-organized processes producing a Grand Design devoid of a
Designer be any more acceptable than irrationally organized religionist quackery of similar
monkey-brained illogical dogma? Perhaps one can begin to see why using terms such as
“twisted”, “irrational” and “convoluted” when discussing the 'reasoning' of modern atheism is
not particularly all that unfair.
Twisting all known logical rational by pontificating upon preconceived bias, some modern
atheists try to argue that a Creator has nothing to do with the process of design simply because
the universe and everything in it appears over a long period of time, as if the Creator’s time
were somehow short, so to speak. Likewise, they laugh to scorn anyone who would suppose
that a Creator could be intimately involved with snow crystal design, weather patterns and
similar “acts of nature”. Conclusions such as this are far less rational than a one-celled
organism claiming that an advanced being such as Leonardo DaVinci could not both design large
physical structures and also intricately mesh the careful perspective and delicate detail of
the Mona Lisa. A position which claims that a Being great enough to design the universe
would somehow, not be intricate enough to be involved with snow crystal design and weather
pattern changes, is truly a foolish and baseless argument.
Even overly mundane, mentally simplistic and morally backward 'natural selectionists’ who
have somehow, managed to randomly appear within our own unfortunate species, sometimes possess
a certain rudimentary ability to create both very large and very small intricately-designed
objects in comparison to their own minute spec-of-dust size. And to be fair, no one has
yet determined just what size (or how many) dimensions our Creator might be, although if God
“sits in the heavens” as the authors of the Bible claim is the case, then the Grand Designer
might just be one exotic grand Giant Being indeed. Why is it any less plausible for our
planet and its inhabitants to "live and move" within God 7 than for small microscopic organisms
to live and move within our own bodies?
Just as our normal lifespan is very long compared to that of certain fruit flies, whose
generations can be measured in minutes, so the apparent fact that the universe came into being
over a long period of time (from our perspective) in no way proves or even suggests that there is
no Creator. Is it in any way reasonable to conclude that we human beings cannot create both
large cities and tiny microchips, just because some beings are much smaller than us
and exist for only a few brief moments? And is it rational for parasites living in our
intestines to argue that a huge exotic creature with creative abilities such as the architect
Frank Lloyd Wright could not exist, just because they cannot see him or are otherwise, unaware of his
presence? Neither is it any more logical for societal parasites of random chance cosmological
astrology hiding behind the ivory towers of our modern universities to claim that there is no
Creator or, that God is not a question for science. To attempt to separate God from
science, that is, the blind separation of Designer from design, is arguably even less rational
than concluding that there is no God. Even if there were no God, one would suppose a logical
and ethical science would be prudent and honest enough to examine evidence for the Creator’s
existence, one way or the other.
Modern atheists also like to put forth the argument that there could be no God because of
all of the calamity, starvation, thievery, rape, murder, war and rumor of war that exists on
our planet and within our species. All this mentally warped position manages to do is to
prove that atheists and other backward members of our species make some very bad choices, as
well as come to some rather obviously unsound conclusions. If
God stepped in and prevented everything God did not like, then how would there be any freedom
of choice? And if we choose to be evil, shiftless and lazy children of our Father in heaven,
than how is this God’s fault? Apparently the rigorous robotic parrots of modern
intellectual dogma somehow can not comprehend the concept of free will, perhaps because they have
given up their own choices to such a mythological monkey-brained lie as self-organizing
Designer-less unnatural and entirely illogical, Natural Selectionism. There is no valid
argument in favor of atheism---there never has been and there very most likely, never ever
will be. ***
And speaking of fruit flies, both Thomas and Julian Huxley (intellectual gods of sorts in
their own convoluted right) and many busy scientists randomly appearing after them, have labored
for unknown hours upon countless hours in taxpayer supported laboratories, conducting torturous
experiments on thousands of generations of rather unlucky fruit
flies for the express purpose of proving that the theory of modern evolution by Natural
Selection is correct. Unfortunately, every experiment conducted so far has only lent
credibility to that famous story found in the Old Testament book of Genesis, which insists
over and over again that creatures appear in abundance “according to their kind”. 8 Oh give thanks
for the lowly fruit fly, which brings the great Babylonian whore of accidental random chance
theory crashing to her clay-jar knees of foolish and baseless assumption, planted in the
rootless quicksand quagmire of an egotistical mutant and mystical narrow-minded astrology of
fatuous and entirely irrational intellectual perversion! And the mighty angels of unseen
dimensions and baboons with half a brain, naturally select “amen” for their answer, as they bow
low to the great I AM of Cosmic Grand Design infinity wonder and only logical primary postulate of true
science and Primary Cause for all observable (and far beyond observable) effect. **** ***** ****** ******* ********
FROM A VIEW INSIDE THE BOWL: It may be a fairly safe bet that what is probably occurring in
true universal reality is that the Creator behind the scenes, in ways beyond our finding out, is
continually manipulating overall physical and other circumstance reality from Logos perspective
(i.e., the Creator’s true ‘outside-the-fishbowl’ perspective), which in turn, down the line
cause slight changes to occur within species favorable to survival and in turn, new species thus
arise. It may even be fair to state, as modern science now claims, that the observable
process (actually from true Logos perspective, result) is from human view, a naturally selecting
process which again from our view, appears as being somewhat on automatic pilot and/or as a
result of reproductive survival competition. It is also possible that the Creator sets a
universe in motion from a totally preconceived grand design and, once the initial conceived
process is in motion, an abundance of change occurs ‘naturally’ without further or only rare
Designer input.
What is purposefully ridiculed in the above article is not the mechanical
correctness or incorrectness of modern evolutionary theory but rather, the insane assumption of
many that the overall grandly designed observable result somehow, appears all by itself without
any input from a Grand Designer(s). The weakness of current theory noted above, in the
notes below and in the companion chapter The Myth of Modern Science, is
included to point out that the accuracy of modern science theory is not nearly as proven or
even as provable as many modern intellectuals would have us believe. The truth from the
view of any honest human being is very plainly, we know extremely little of both what is
actually and what is ultimately, true. [ repeated from Chapter 15 ]
...I must cross over to campground"
$10,000 Reward
Challenge
The Jane Goodall
Institute
DEDICATED TO: Jane Goodall, whose life work observing, trying to protect and attempting
to instill a little respect for our supposed ancestors, clearly leaves an evolutionary doubt in the
author's mind in favor of the chimpanzee. (Thank you, Mr. Clemens.)
Credits:
1. A major problem with Natural Selection which is rarely addressed (if ever), is the necessity
of very great amounts of time for even small changes in species and especially, theoretical
changes from species to new species, to occur. Most scientists strongly believe that
the earth has only been here 4.5 billion or so years at best and that the requirements for life
have existed for less time, not to mention the apparent several major cataclysmic events which
have theoretically destroyed most early species. And according to modern theory, it takes millions and millions and
millions and millions and millions and a great many more millions of “rare” mutations (aberrations
from the norm) for species to evolve from the postulated primordial soup to relatively advanced
one-celled organisms and on up to intricate in-living-color eyeballed “advanced" species
such as our own. Thus, very arguably there has not been nearly enough time for all of the
millions of species on our planet to have evolved from a simple (modern biologists would argue,
not at all simple) one-celled very, very, very great-grandmother in such a time-consuming
manner. In fact, there is a very good argument for the entire known universe not to have
been in existence long enough for such a multitude plethora of changes to have occurred and
self-organized into the immense variety of known species. And modern science has concluded
that most species on earth were completely wiped out less than 250 million years ago. The
necessary time span for the observable reality would be much shorter if earth’s species have
arisen from many primary sources rather than from just one.
Another problem with Natural Selection is its lack of ability to rationally explain
why ours and other species continue to harbor devastating disease. Although many
proponents of modern evolutionary theory will argue to the contrary, explaining that
disease-causing organisms fight for survival as much as other species do, a primary
postulate of Natural Selection clearly breaks down; fundamental to the theory of Natural
Selection is that changes within species are overall, toward positive reproductive
advantage. If this were true, then one would suppose after millions and millions of
mutational changes, species would begin to break away from that which inhibits the ability to
effectively reproduce and thus over time, disease free (or at least, more disease free)
species would begin to appear. Also, it would seem, species that have been around for a
very long time such as cockroaches would eventually become free of disease, which they do
not and likewise, "highly advanced" species such as we imagine ourselves to be, would over
millions of years advance away from that which inhibits our survival instead of remaining
riddled with disease. (See Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident worm example discussed in
chapter entitled The Myth of Modern Science for further details regarding contradictions in
theory of undesirable gene trait elimination.)
And then there is the fundamental problem of attempting to explain why there is such a
thing as disease in the first place. In other words, why do species emerge from a
theorized singular primordial beginning bearing organisms in conflict with reproductive progress
within their own beings? It would seem logical that if the driving mechanism behind
the observable plethora of species were reproductive advantage, then species from the primordial
outset would not evolve as hosts for reproductive-inhibiting viruses and other
organisms. How can the current harsh reality of the natural world of species in
constant survival conflict with each other be logically explained as natural selection powered
by reproductive advantage?
Still a third problem is the fact that species found at very great ocean depths
display, what appears to the rational mind to be, both deliberate design and
coloration. Natural
Selection postulates that apparent design and the great variety of coloration we see spread
throughout the natural world exists solely for reproductive (including survival)
purposes. If this fundamental postulate of modern science is true, then why do species at
ocean depths where there is no light (and often no eyes) for other species to detect varying
coloration and design, continue to display design and color diversity? Modern proponents
of Designer-less evolution are quick to claim that the huge multi-diversity of coloration
displayed by shallow depth ocean creatures, such as brilliant reds in particular, acts to filter
out light reflection and thus, helps protect species from predators. These same rather
contradictory examples of our "highly advanced species" are not nearly so quick to explain why
creatures found well below the "midnight" ocean depth line also have diverse design and coloration; one
such creature found at a very great depth actually changes from red when young to white as an
adult. Explanations such as deep water jelly fish having pigmented internal organs to hide
luminescent creatures after they swallow them do not even begin to explain the multiplex
coloration and design diversity found at many thousands of feet (photosynthesis of plants
becomes impossible around five or six hundred feet, where light is less than 1% of that on the
surface and below one thousand feet, the percentage of light is so miniscule as to be essentially
non-existent). For example, certain plantlike tubeworms found at depths of 1500 feet and
more are grayish-yellow in color on the outside and open to bright red and other color interior
parts. Coloration underscoring significant external design markings on various ocean
creatures well below the “midnight” depth level includes green, blue, red, yellow, orange, aqua
and purple; explanations that these colors appear differently at dark ocean depths than near the
surface where there is light cannot satisfactorily account for such immense design and coloration
diversity.
Apparently certain rather narrow-thinking 'one-trick-pony-minded' theorists cannot grasp
the simple logic of the overwhelming evidence that species display seemingly limitless design
and color variation for a variety of reasons, among them reflecting the glory of our Creator,
camouflage protection and reproductive inducement. Also, exactly how creatures
evolved from a single original primordial source to be now found surviving at both high mountain
altitudes and extreme ocean depths remains a mystery beyond all hope of rational
explanation. Unsatisfactory argumentation of species migration does not explain the
existence of deep-sea species that do not migrate and, due to extreme depth, pressure,
temperature and other habitat differentiation, have no logical hope of having ever migrated from
shallower ocean depths (or upward in reverse); certain creatures living at very great depths do
not even require sunlight to exist as more familiar surface species do and thus, are not even
remotely similar to land plants and animals. The perhaps more probable scenario that
species emerge from many points of origination forming 'locked-in' Family types, as the known
evidence indicates (see fruit fly experimentation noted above), is dismissed without
consideration by modern evolutionists hell-bent on an irrational unholy quest to eliminate
Designer from the overwhelmingly obvious reality of design.
Which opens up a Darwinian Pandora's "black box" to a frustrating fourth problem. Many
evolutionary biologists admit that the extremely intricate human sight system poses a severe
dilemma to the entire theory of evolution by Natural Selection, human sight functionality being
an irreducibly complex system that appears to be unaccountably much farther advanced than the
rest of our body parts and theoretically, would have taken a truly astronomically immense
number of generational mutations to evolve as such from a simple primary organism. Also
for the sight system to be such an overwhelmingly complex advanced product of selective mutations,
there logically would have had to be gaps in the process where the eye and corresponding brain
interaction mechanisms would have been in stages of complete uselessness. Human sight
functionality is an irreducible complex system consisting of several well-matched, interacting
parts that contribute to the overall sight process. Slight alteration of one of the parts causes the
entire system to cease functioning. Such an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced
by slight mutational modifications, because even a slight alteration of the complex whole causes
total system failure. Pieces of the human eye evolution puzzle initially assumed by
Darwin himself have been proven entirely inaccurate in the light of modern biological knowledge
and some biologists are now claiming that random or selective mutational processes by Natural
Selection cannot hope to account for the complexity of human sight. Thus, a relatively
insignificant small portion of a being called "human" causes the entire theory of
evolution by Natural Selection to be brought into serious question.
2. A good example of an hypothesis readily discarded, not because it has been proven to be
false but rather, because there is no known way to prove that it is correct, is a previously
held (by some) speculation that the universe is surrounded by water, which would help to explain
why hydrogen is so abundantly found in the universe while other elements are much more rare by comparison
(there are also other explanations of why hydrogen is abundant). Several scientists,
including the late Carl Sagan, have spent some time considering this idea of a great cosmic
ocean in which our universe is an expanding bubble, which the authors of the Bible claim to be
the case (both in Genesis and Psalms---see Random Chance A-Z
Primer of Science and the Bible for more information). There is
currently no way to scientifically prove that the existence of a great cosmic ocean is either
true or that it is false. In other words, it does not qualify as an accepted theory of
science because it fails to meet certain scientific standards, requirements that have been
entirely discarded for the extremely weak Natural Selection hypothesis.
Natural
Selection, in the light of accepted scientific method, does not qualify as a scientific theory
and most definitely does not merit the modern paramount status it has for whatever reason,
randomly achieved. It is probable that Natural Selection has been given such sacred
fundamental theory canonical status because it helps excuse modern science from having to
examine the overwhelming hard-core evidence of a Grand Designer. Or at least many
scientists it would seem, vainly imagine it exonerates them. One would assume it is rather
doubtful that the Creator excuses such irrational occultism, after all, how would we be likely
to react if scientists and educators kept telling our children that we do not exist or perhaps
far worse, that it is not important whether or not we do in fact, exist.
3. Samuel Clemens is said to have remarked that he did not believe that evolutionary theory
could possibly be correct, as it does such a great "disservice to the ape." W.C. Fields
is rumored to have said “horse sense is what a horse has that keeps him from betting on
people”. To which of course, us much-beleaguered souls of the 21st Century might fairly
add, “logic is what the true skeptic has that keeps him from betting on science and what a
baboon has, that keeps him from believing that people somehow evolved from his more advanced and
obviously more rational ancestors.”
4. Online Astronomy Picture of
the Day Calendar; August 4th, 2002.
5. Some scientists have very recently began to question the existence of black holes, claiming
that the evidence might in fact, be interpreted in other ways. ALL scientists, however,
very strongly believe that there are a great many invisible entities located throughout the known
universe. Most of these same 'scientists' who do not believe in or otherwise, examine
evidence for the existence of a Creator, are being entirely dishonest regarding evidence, the
scientific method and the reality of knowledge, truth and perception, as well as common horse
sense. Note also that some scientists readily admit that evidence can be interpreted in
more than one way. It would be refreshing if these same scientists admitted likewise
concerning the evidence for possibilities other than "self-organizing" universal design from
chaos and how creation actually might function; i.e., what might easily be true rather than
evolution by Natural Selection from a single primary source, based on the same observable
evidence. A
'science' or 'education' system that refuses to consider alternate possibilities to the sacred
cow of what has mutated into an extremely narrow and conservative theory of evolution by Natural
Selection, is no more reasonable or acceptable than modern conservative religious fundamentalism,
nor does it have any particular value for the enlightenment and improvement of our violent,
irrationally proud and often contradictory species.
6. It is far more reasonable to conclude that people are not a question for science because a
parasite inside a goldfish cannot actually see the child who feeds the fish than it is to argue
with the same twisted logic concerning the unseen Creator. And to be completely honest, it
makes more sense to believe that we do not exist than to imagine that there is no
God; there is no rational Cause for the observable Effect if there is no Creator, though
if we as a species with our modern science manage to blow ourselves to kingdom come, life and
the universe and our Father in heaven will more than likely go right on existing just fine
without us.
7. Acts 17:28;
see also Psalm 2:4.
8. One theory is that aberrations from the DNA norm are caused by mutations induced by cosmic
rays. Unfortunately, this does not explain where cosmic rays originate other than to say
they are from ‘star stuff’ which of course, leaves us short of explanation for where star stuff
comes from and so on back to or prior to the theorized “big bang”; i.e., does not explain
Primary Cause, nor where the primordial ‘stuff’ of the big bang came from. Those who argue
that Natural Selection is not required to explain origin are those who do not understand the
meaning of terms such as “honesty”, “logic”, “truth” and “science”; i.e., it is not honest,
logical, truthful or scientific to believe in something that has no basis in reality, the reality
of existence requiring Cause for Effect. It would seem that the only true rational
explanation for Primary Cause is the “before Abraham was, I AM” concept handed down through
Moses, for if the Creator has no beginning or ending, then Primary Cause is rationally
satisfied by "I AM". Any other explanation leaves Primary Cause unexplained and unexplainable and
thus, fundamentally unscientific and most definitely, completely unsatisfactory.
Because
we have a beginning and ending and likewise, the known universe appears to have a beginning and
an ending, it does not necessarily follow that God has a beginning and an ending. Scientists
two hundred years ago would have utterly laughed to scorn anyone who suggested exotic concepts
such as the great size and scope of our modern view of the universe, black holes, quarks,
anti-matter, dark matter, alternate dimensions and other universes. Not
possessing the knowledge of what our modern technology allows, it would have been far easier
two hundred years ago to accept the existence of an eternal being than to attempt to believe what
modern scientists now readily accept. If one thinks it through carefully, it is really not
an irrational or difficult idea to believe in the existence of an eternal Designer, especially
in the light of our modern cosmological conception and evidence. On the contrary, it is
arguably irrational to believe otherwise as, for if there is no eternal Creator, then there is no
rational or satisfactory explanation for anything at all.
*FootNote: According to the Bible, in contradiction to what both modern religion and
modern science and education profess, true faith is based on “the evidence of things not seen”
and/or fully understood, for now we “know in part”, seeing as “in a mirror, very
dimly”. The Bible states that the unseen Creator is mirrored in creation, just the
same as modern science “believes” in invisible light based on the mirrored (indirect)
evidence. There is absolutely no scientific difference between believing in God based on
the evidence than there is believing in radio waves, black holes or quarks based on the
evidence. None of these can be seen, but the argument for the existence of them all has
high credibility based on indirect observable evidence. The obvious difference being,
that the evidence for a Creator is much greater than for the invisible spectrum, black holes
and quarks combined. Again, an ‘educator’ who instructs otherwise is falsely
misrepresenting the “scientific method”; i.e., what modern science is supposedly based
on. Jesus and the authors of the Bible were opposed to any kind of superstitious nonsense
postulating something is true just because a priest, educator or scientist (or every scientist)
says so. True faith and true science are ALWAYS based on EVIDENCE. The remainder of
what we assume to be true should be counted "as dung" (modern terminology; "bullshit"), fit for
the enhancement of none and the ridicule of the Jay Leno/David Letterman/Saturday Night Live
crowd, accordingly.
**FootNote II: Some modern scientists believe that modern evolutionary theory by Natural
Selection is the most valid explanation for how the Creator creates. Although the author
does not particularly agree with this view, as Natural Selection leaves more than a little to
be desired and is rife with contradictions of the known evidence, nevertheless the author has
no particular quarrel with this type of scientist, as at least the overwhelmingly evidence for
design is not being ignored. The author believes very strongly that alternate explanations
should be thoroughly examined, including the very strong possibility (in the author’s opinion)
that multiple species (or Genus or Family) originate independently spread throughout the earth,
rather than from a single primary source. This would help explain why in the fossil
record, there is abundant evidence of micro-evolution, changes within species, very little
if any evidence of macro-evolution, the ‘advancing’ or changing from one species to another and
absolutely no evidence of evolutionary 'advancement' beyond Family types.
Modern evolutionary theory since Darwin has insisted, without much compelling
evidence (and most certainly without any real scientific proof), that all life forms on our
planet evolved from a single primary source. One argument in favor of this is that
we have similar DNA to apes and other mammals and some rather distant seeming similarities to
certain marine life and other more "primitive" species. A second argument is
that fish appear in the fossil record well ahead of Homo erectus. Apparently
modern evolutionary theory has no qualms forcing one plus two to inarguably equal forty-seven;
in truth, there are several ways to rationally interpret the same evidence. The known
evidence is probably more supportive of the idea that life appeared all over the place on our
planet and that species come from many if not hundreds or thousands of primary sources. In
other words, what causes life may be common rather than rare as science postulates. There
is no proof at all that life is a rarely occurring phenomena, such a conclusion being only
baseless assumption due to modern science’s failure to examine whether or not there is a Creator;
i.e., if there is no Creator, it is thus assumed that life must be accidental and therefore,
conditions for life arising, very rare. If there is a Creator however, what causes life to
be brought "forth abundantly" may be quite common and prevalent both on our own planet and
throughout the greater Cosmos.
Why may it be more plausible to conclude that life appeared in many different
originating places on our planet rather than from one primary source? Because this would
explain why there are very few if any “cross-over” species as Darwin postulated must abundantly
exist in the fossil record. And, it is entirely logical to conclude that the reason we
share DNA and some similarities to other species is because that is the best way, according to
the Creator's wisdom, for species to survive and multiply in our mutually shared planetary
habitat. Likewise, the changes that a human fetus experiences going through a 'gill-like'
stage in early development may be the best way for it to survive rather than an indication that
we were once numbered among the fish. Because a house constructed first is different than
an office building constructed later, yet similar in both design and structural parts, it does not rationally follow that the
office building evolved from the house, rather than the far more likely conclusion that they
were created independently of each other by the same Master Builder using similar materials and
structural parts. And the apparent fact that marine life were ahead of us in line for
creation in no way proves that people evolved from fish, that being only one of several plausible
explanations---maybe we were just created later, similar to as the office building in the
above example was formed after the house. Scientists believe that marine and other
species are still evolving on our planet. If this is true and if the fossil record were to
be examined ten million years from now, would it be correct to conclude that later appearing
insects, fish and birds will have evolved from us because we appear first in the fossil record,
simply because they share similar DNA and other structure to ourselves? Perhaps one can
begin to see what might be wrong with a theory that blindly accepts unproven and non-provable
hypothesis and does not allow for divergent opinions and alternate plausible
explanations. A theory of science that prostitutes itself against known contradictory
evidence, refusing to allow for alternative possibilities, is nothing more than a poorly
contrived fairytale of juvenile 'b-grade' science fiction at best.
***FootNote III: The case for atheism is entirely without merit, as there is absolutely no
evidence whatsoever that there is no God. Anyone claiming that there is no God is an utter
liar, postulating a baseless assumption without foundation in the physical reality and thus, is
no wiser than the conservative fundamentalist who claims to believe what the Bible says just
because the Bible says so. Agnosticism, although more honest than atheism, is also
scientifically unfounded and can be fairly equated to religious superstition; all of the known
physical evidence mirrors design and thus, indicates Designer. Since all of the known
observable evidence indicates Designer(s), the correct scientific position based on the evidence,
is that there is a Creator God or Gods until someone can rationally prove otherwise. There
is no evidence whatsoever for "self organizing" or "random" processes resulting in universal
order from chaos. Accepted theories of science are theoretically
based on the most logical conclusion possible after examination of the known observable
evidence. A reprobate ‘educator’ attempting to convince students otherwise is sniffing
down a bottomless sewer of archaic mysticism and baseless blind superstition. As stated in
Note #7 above, the most correct scientific postulate to have yet emerged within the known record
of our species is that handed down through Moses in the Old Testament book Exodus, which
correctly postulates I AM as the Primary Cause for all observable
Effect. There is no other satisfactory explanation for the observable evidence, nor is
there likely to be found a better one within the next several “billions and billions” and a
great many more billions of years. If God has always existed, than "I AM" makes perfect
rational scientific sense. If there is no Creator or if the Creator is finite and has not
always existed, then there can be no hope of a rational explanation for the observable reality.
****FootNote IV: Most Christians seem to assume, based on unfounded religious tradition,
that the Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth and then apparently, more-or-less
retired. Most modern evolutionists, in no small part because of such baseless Christian
tradition, argue against the idea of a Creator having created (past tense) the universe because
of the overwhelming evidence of species continuing to change, die out and new species taking
their place. The Bible very clearly in several places claims that God created in the past,
continues to create as we live and breathe and that God will continue to create in the future,
long after we are no longer here. All of the known evidence overwhelmingly indicates that
this is true. Fundamentalist Christianity and the more-or-less, equally narrow-minded
religion of 'Natural Selectionism' both fall very far short of possessing a conclusive and
satisfactory explanation for the observable reality.
*****FootNote V: Biblical Geneology
Timeframe from Jesus to Adam Confirmed by Recent Modern Science Research.
******FootNote VI: Not touched on in this article is the fairly new argument arising among
some scientists and historians and educators of both, regarding disturbingly contradictory
evidence in the historical record of our species, which indicates that modern evolutionary theory
may at best, be only half right. An accurate theory of science postulating singular
motivation, such as Natural Selection attempts to do (i.e., that our sole primary motivation is
reproduction), by necessity must explain why we do what we do as a species in the historical and
current reality and not just be content with explaining the physical reality itself (see The Myth of Modern Science for
further explanation). A major difficulty prevalent in the Western world today is that
our systems of knowledge tend to divide and fragment various disciplines rather than to teach
the search for truth as a cohesive whole, dividing rather than interlacing disciplines of history,
science, language, art, religion, psychology and others into a singular quest for what is
true. Because of this shallow fragmented approach, modern ‘educators’ have been able to
shove discussion of God under the narrow carpet of comparative religion and thus, have cleverly
spared themselves the embarrassment of having to deal with the overwhelming evidence of the
Designer’s existence in the science classroom (see The Tree of
Knowledge for further explanation). Individuals claiming to be educators who
are not willing to examine and discuss evidence of God are charlatans and frauds and We The
People should keep such destructive liars far away from our impressionable children, as well as
demand that the government, which supposedly represents our interests, revoke their licenses to
teach. (Also for related information, see
Random Chance A-Z
Primer of Science and the Bible and Adam
and Eve’s Apple.)
*******FootNote VII: There is much discussion in the modern 21st Century
politically correct world about whether or not God should be referred to as “He”, “She”, “It”
or in some other fashion. There are some indications in the Bible that God has no gender,
at least as we think of gender from our earth-spec-of-dust perspective. In certain
passages, God addresses both male and female members of our species as if they are beings
different than ‘He/She/Itself’ in that we have gender. Jesus referred to God as “Our
Father in heaven”, howbeit, creation itself teaches us, asexual reproduction and the male-bearing
seahorse for example, that it is not necessary to have a mother in order to be a father (the
seahorse does need a female for fertilization). Likewise, father in the sense that Jesus
taught, may refer to Primary Cause rather than to gender. God could rationally quite
well have “fathered” the universe apart from any other being.
Nature appears to be a rather dependable schoolmaster
for the unseen Designer, as it consistently reflects the three-in-one nature of the Creator Being
everywhere throughout the physical earth: The earth has three major visible parts---water, air,
land; we have three parts as well---head, torso, appendages as do other land-based animals; birds
have three parts---head, body, wings, as do also various marine and plant organisms. Note
that this physical reality is three-in-one, i.e., three parts interlaced together and not
distinctly separate sections with clearly defined borders. (See Like a Tree Planted for a
description of some of the evidence of the three-in-one nature of God as reflected in
creation.) The Bible long ago portrayed the Creator as an extremely advanced
way-beyond-all-knowledge grand exotic Three-In-One Being who simply spoke and the universe came
into existence, much as if God conceived of the entire universe and all of its intricate ongoing
grand design all at once in LOGOS (i.e., God's mind) before causing it to become a physical
reality. Today our modern science is slowly catching up to the realization that there
probably exist a great many universes and dimensions and exotic beings far beyond all ability of our
finite minds and technology to comprehend. Recently, some highly respected scientists are
beginning to refer to the Cosmos as “creation”, due in large part one would assume, to the
awe-inspiring grandiose far-beyond-belief infinity wonder of it all.
********FootNote VIII: In spite of what evolutionary biologists having long insisted
could not be the case, Scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General
Hospital in Boston have recently conducted experiments indicating that life may originate in
soil, just as the Bible claims.
|