Creation: Mother Nature’s Plan
A guest post today from my brilliant husband, Gregg.
The 6 types of evolution taught as fact in the average public school today, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution which are preached as religious beliefs, and the 6th being simple modifications within kind, or changes within kind, and not even really “evolution” are:
- Cosmic evolution
- Stellar evolution
- Chemical evolution
- Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
- Micro-evolution (Variations within kind, not really evolution)
Before I step into the primordial soup that is Chemical Evolution, which slips nicely down the logical slope into the quagmire of Abiogenesis, I must preface those future posts with some foundational data. This data is important for context. From previous posts, we have the context of the Darwinist religious belief in Cosmic Evolution and Stellar Evolution. The next major tenet in the secular humanist dogma is Chemical Evolution.
First of all, what is Chemical Evolution?
In the fine tradition of fallacious equivocation practiced by Darwinists, Chemical Evolution has multiple meanings.
Nucleosynthesis is the authoritatively scientific sounding word Darwinists invented to describe one kind of Chemical Evolution. That is, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae, or stars blowing up over and over, all of which I have logically and scientifically refuted in previous posts.
As an aside, how amusing is it that a few Sunday posts on an internet blog dealing primarily with homemaking can utterly devastate a widely accepted Darwinist theory? Kind of makes one wonder why it is so widely accepted. I have to confess that sometimes when I write these Sunday posts, I have to really focus so that I don’t spend the entire time laughing at the sheer absurdity of the prevalent Darwinist claims.
The most commonly accepted definition of terrestrial Chemical Evolution is this: The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; lasting less than a billion years; the first step in the development of life on earth (Abiogenesis).
Darwinists also falsely claim that many of the steps in chemical evolution can now be reproduced in the laboratory. I will detail the gigantic falseness of that claim in future posts. And, since they constantly have a time problem — not enough time for any of this nonsense to occur naturally — some scientists believe that all or most of the Earth’s original organic molecules were created in (use your big megaphone announcer voice) OUTER SPACE and were brought to the Earth’s oceans by 1) meteorites or, and I am not making this up, 2) alien beings.
Yes. Alien beings. The authoritatively scientific sounding word to describe the “aliens did it” theory is called Panspermia. Stop laughing. It hurts their feelings.
All of the Darwinian grasping at straws nonsense aside, let’s examine the core claim. Since terrestrial chemical evolution allegedly took place long ago and far away just as with any good fairy tale, we must presume that the earth is millions or billions of years old. Obviously, Mother Nature and good old Mother Earth clearly saw that there was a need for better organization after the magma cooled, and they got their heads together and planned and projected and made up for expected shortfalls and cataloged the available raw materials in order to work toward that goal.
The foundational data we must examine, therefore, has to do with the fallacy of Darwinist reification and the age of the earth. In this post, I will focus on reification.
The Reification of Mother Nature and Mother Earth
From a logical perspective, the fallacy of reification occurs whenever human traits are attributed to anything that does not possess them. For example, when nature or the earth is personified, or given characteristics that they do not possess.
“Nature” does not have a mind, a will, or an intent. Nature is name that we have given to the order in which occurrences take place when left to their own devices. Likewise, Earth is not our mother. Earth is a planet. “Earth” does not have a mind, a will, or an intent. Earth does not love you and did not give birth to you. Earth is just your address. Period. You do not call your college residence “Mother Dorm Room,” and neither is the planet where you live worthy of the honorific.
“Mother Nature” and “Mother Earth” are purloined terms coined by Darwinists to replace terms like Father God. Unlike Nature, which God invented, and Earth, which God created, God DOES have a mind, a will, and an intent, and God DOES love you. Therefore, to ascribe these characteristics to a living God is not fallacious.
Explaining the Darwinist Religious Belief
Ask a Darwinist how the universe came to exist. His answer is the Big Bang. Not even Stephen Hawking believes Big Bang is the answer and there is a mountain of evidence disproving it that dwarfs Everest.
Ask a Darwinist how stars are formed. His answer will be that gas condensed in (use your megaphone announcer voice) OUTER SPACE, then exploded over and over. The two largest problems with that explanation are that gas doesn’t condense and nothing explodes more than once.
Ask a Darwinist how planets, like the earth, first formed. He will ignore the logical and scientific facts that make Big Bang impossible and “also ran” impossibility of his absurd notions of how stars form. Then he will claim that heavy elements were cast off of “generation II or III” stars — probably as a result of some kind of collision — and that the earth and other planets formed as a big molten ball of rock that slowly cooled over (big megaphone announcer voice again) billions of years.
Of course, all of this flies in the face of logic, common sense, scientific evidence, and real science. There is absolutely NOTHING other than the Darwinist claims themselves which supports the notion that orbital mechanics, the laws of motion, the universal laws pertaining to such things as gravity, the strong and weak atomic forces, the laws of thermodynamics, and so on, can all put themselves on hold long enough for this fantasy to occur. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing. Nil. Nada. Zilch.
But in order for Darwinism to be true, in their minds these fantasy events MUST have occurred, so it is therefore necessary to ignore science, facts, evidence, and logic.
Incidentally, this is the fallacy commonly referred to as begging the question. The Darwinist response is that “there is no other explanation.” To which common sense answers, well, of course there are other explanations. By claiming “no other possible” explanation, Darwinists are limiting their closed minds to a philosophy of methodological naturalism. This is consistent with the secular humanist religion so it is understandable, though it is a lie. The truth is that there could be a host of other yet to be discovered explanations, or one could look to revealed knowledge that states God created everything which, wouldn’t you know, turns out to be supported by evidence, facts, and scientific observation.
Each Darwinian tenet is contingent upon the previous tenet being accepted. It is a cumulative belief system. Therefore, according to the Darwinist religious belief, Cosmic Evolution HAD to take place in order for Stellar Evolution to take place and so on. This means that the earth is (big megaphone announcer voice) billions of years old and originally appeared as a giant ball of magma. This had to be the case, you see, in order for chemical evolution to then take place some millions or billions of years later which, according to their religious belief, led to Abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution and ultimately monkeys to mankind.
Thoughtful Sand and Seawater
Darwinists claim that sand and seawater got their heads together and decided to change into living creatures, which then “evolved” into all life on earth. As idiotic as that claim sounds on its face, Darwinists are very earnest about it. They claim the sand and seawater did it by employing the authoritatively scientific sounding process they have labeled, “natural selection.”
If you ask a Darwinists what that means, he will tell you that “natural selection” is the random, mindless action of, in this case, the seawater. According to their theory, by unthinking chance, sand and seawater changed itself into complex amino acids which then formed into complex protien chains which then formed into segements of RNA, then into DNA, then chromosomes, and ultimately into the first “simple” single celled organism. The first single celled life form then found something to eat and someone to marry, and off we go into the “TREE OF LIFE” which resulted in all living creatures in the known universe.
Just so you know, mathematical impossibility has been calculated at 1 in 1050 on the high side (Émile Borel) and 1 in 10150 on the low side (William Dembski).
The smallest theoretical cell is made up of 239 proteins. At least 124 different types of proteins are needed for the cell to become a living thing. But the simplest known non-theoretical self-reproducing organism is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) containing 625 proteins with an average of 400 amino acids in a specific sequence in each and every protein (any one mistake in any sequence results in a non-living organism).
The probability of the occurrence of the smallest theoretical life form is only 1 chance in 10 119,879 . The years required for the smallest theoretical life form to evolve would be 10119,841 years or 10119,831 times the assumed 4.2 billion year age of the earth. The probability of the smallest theoretical cell of only 239 proteins evolving without the needed 124 different types of proteins to evolve this “helpless group of non-living molecules” in less than 500 billion years is only 1 chance in 10119,701.
Darwinists successfully ignore the factual implications of such enormous odds against their belief. If you are a normal, open-minded, and thinking person, you cannot. You might observe that it is obvious that nothing makes itself. This realization might lead you to ask how all living things REALLY did first come into existence. This is where we can return to logic.
To start with, everybody knows that something has to be needed before it is put together, or invented (created), or made. To say it another way, the first step in getting something new made is realizing that it needs to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.
It is in that moment of realization that natural selection drops out of the picture. The fact is that unthinking randomness never feels the need for anything and never realizes anything.
The reason that scientifically authoritative phrase, “natural selection,” sounds so able to get the job done is because it has that little word, “selection,” in there. Although very clever sounding, it makes “natural selection” a built-in lie. The truth is that nothing mindless has the ability to select because nothing without a mind can think.
The further truth is that, “natural selection” does not even actually exist. It is just a scientifically authoritative sounding phrase, like epicycles or big squeeze or any other Darwinist nonsense phrase. Books on Darwinism also call it “unplanned randomness,” and nothing more. So, to say it again, the only way something new can be made is when someone identifies a need to make it, and then goes ahead and does just that. In doing so, someone employs a little or a great deal of thought to the design.
Let’s say a box of a particular size and shape needs to be made using wood and nails. But that requires a thinking mind that wants to do it. If no one wants to construct it, that box will never get built. I can absolutely 100% guarantee you on my very life that “unknown evolutionary forces” using “natural selection” will never, ever, ever, ever build that box.
Things only get done when someone does a little thinking and planning, and then sets to work. Perhaps a list of needed materials is assembled. Perhaps a plan is created. Perhaps it is approached methodically along the lines of a project. Perhaps some war-gaming and brainstorming takes place where scenarios are pitched against the anticipated goal or the process mapped out to achieve that goal. Nothing without a mind can achieve ANY of that.
Senseless theories about boxes making themselves are ultimately useless. It is unlikely that even the most ardent Darwinists would sit around waiting for natural selection to fashion a box. Living things are VASTLY more complicated than a simple wooden box. The simplest living single celled organism known to man is almost infinitely more complex than a wooden box.Yet Darwinists who would not accept that a box can form naturally will fervently argue that all living things originally made themselves without any intervention and without a mind identifying any kind of need for anything to exist in the first place.
Of course the universe, galaxy clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, comets, microbes, plants, and animals are enormously more complex than a box with nails in it. While human minds can fashion wooden boxes, we cannot hope to fashion any of the other complex systems that surround us in the universe. The fact is that only a mind far greater than that which any human possesses can make living creatures.
As Christians, it is difficult for us to relate to the secular humanist worldview. Darwinists believe that in order to accept the existence of God, we must abandon reason. Darwinists are trapped in a closed mind, a reprobate mind according to scripture, that does not allow for any other possibilities outside of a life without purpose, a life of ultimate futility, a life of randomness and chance.
The Darwinist belief represent the modern world but it is little more than the beliefs of Ba’al reloaded. The modern world is in reality the very same collection of souls with whom we, as Christians, are charged to share the truth of the Gospel message. In order to do this, we must understand the things that they believe and be able to show them the error in those beliefs. We must be able to show them the truth of our beliefs. (1 Peter 3:15) The Greek word is apologea — to make an answer for the hope that lives in us.
We are instructed to answer humbly and without disrespect which has the end result of building a dialog. Once accomplished, and mythical Darwinist beliefs dispelled, we can very often and very successfully offer the answer as to how to obtain the one thing that is largely absent from the secular humanist worldview.
I am speaking of the love that was given to all of us as a gift, though we were so very unworthy of it. A redeeming love, a sacrificial love, a love that provides eternal peace and comfort.
It is a love that tradition allows us to celebrate in this season by the fact that God so loved this world and his creations that He gave his only begotten Son, the Lamb of God, to redeem us for all time.
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and DarwinismPin It
WOW I love the wooden box. It makes a very easy to understand picture.
Thank you, Michelle. God Bless and have a Merry Christmas.
Don’t leave the case for panspermia without acknowledging carbon’s business partner, silicon.
wow! Gregg your knowledge astounds me…thank you for sharing and explaining so us normal people can understand. this just made me really miss you! Can’t wait to see you. God Bless and see you soon!
Thanks Melissa. I appreciate the comments. Be sure to check in every Sunday for my tiny contributions here. I’ll be home for 3 weeks next month. See you then.
Thanks for the remarks. The link you sent me to refers to atoms as the “larvae of stars” and you refer to the elements of silicon and carbon as business partners. Both of those sentiments directly employ anthropomorphism, which is to attribute living characteristics — characteristics of mind — to non-living and mindless things. While fanciful, I tend to have a much more realistic take. For example, I believe that atoms are, well, atoms. I also believe that inorganic elements cannot form business partnerships since, you know, they don’t have minds or own businesses. I also understand and take into account things like light and strong atomic forces, laws of attraction, laws of motion, angular momentum, the various mass gaps and their effects on elements, and other scientific universal laws like that.
If what you are trying to get at is that there could possibly be life forms in the vast, vast universe which are based on something other than carbon based on something like the Drake equation, then I could recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Anthropic Principle. The Drake equation started with a massively flawed premise and is now disproved. In summary, it has been shown that living things must be carbon based and must be supported by various “Goldilocks” zones in order to even exist. Discovering this was a huge disappointment to me since I loved the concept of all kinds of non-carbon based life forms from the silicon based Horta in the original Star Trek to Anne McCaffrey’s boron based dragons on Pern.
I dismiss the “aliens did it” theories because they immediately beg the question which abandons both logic and reason. The bottom line is that for ANY form of life to have evolved on ANY planet in the universe by ANY means and based on ANY element would take trillions of trillions of years even by the most conservative calculations and the odds against it happening are well beyond mathematically impossible. It has been conservatively estimated that there is only 1 chance in 10119,879 that the simplest theoretical life form imaginable could possibly evolve even given 10119,841 years. That is a VAST number of years beyond 1010 years that it supposedly has existed.
And of course, stars don’t live that long. Energy is simply transformed matter. Even assuming the 60 year old theory of stellar fusion is the cause for stars giving off heat and light — which I do not believe to be accurate — stars would last at most a few billion years. Given the more plausible and earlier solar collapse theory for starlight, stars would only last a scant few million years.
Thanks for visiting and stop back often.
The Scientific Method consists of observation and repeatable experimentation. Creation, by definition, was not observable by anyone within the bounds of this universe. And it is beyond our power to repeat the experiment. Therefore, the whole debate about origins is a philosophical, not scientific, debate. A basic philosophical axiom is that if your foundational assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those assumptions are also wrong. Let’s examine the unprovable, foundational assumptions about each philosophy: Darwinism states that in the beginning there was nothing, that became something, got itself organized, gave itself life, and then made itself better. Christianity states that in the beginning there was God, who created the world and everything in it in perfect harmony. Then Adam and Eve rebelled, and sin and death entered the world. But, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16 If you believe in evolution based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. I believe in the God of the Bible based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. Which belief system requires the greater faith? I only know of One who was there at the beginning. I choose to believe His first hand, written account, instead of placing my faith in the assumptions made by those who were not there at the beginning.
Well said and God bless.