The Something From Nothing Theory
A Rigid Divide
The practice and disciplines in which both faith and science understand the world are fundamentally opposed of one another. Much of the scientific community has conformed to Charles Darwin’s evolution theory; persistent and inflexible in the assumption that some random biological mystery provides a reasonable explanation to the origin of all earth’s living species. Almost an automatic correlation, most evolutionists prefer a life of atheism, where beliefs in God’s existence are compared to mythical unicorns, spaghetti monster’s or the Easter bunny. The line of opposition is a contentious & rigid divide for the religious, as faith based arguments refute evolutionary science, as is the long standing steadfast Christian belief that the world and all living things therein were intelligently designed and created by God.
Debate of the Ages
While most Christian’s refuse to consider the possibility of evolution being responsible for life, at the very least, many have been objective in their supposition, at first approaching the subject with an open mind to evaluate the premise upon which Darwin’s Theory presumes. In their effort to reach a well-informed decision, close assessment and consideration still finds the overwhelming majority unable to comprehend the logic in a theory that explains the beginning of life as a single living cell catching a ride on meteor, that slammed into the ocean, which then became some primordial sludge, from which an arduous process, which took hundreds of millions of years to transpire, could make a miraculous transformation into sea plankton, an onward into all forms of life.
When Christians are asked about the theory of evolution, most will give the same response: “You can’t get something from nothing,” Based on the lack of observable scientific proof to support Darwin’s theory, a very practical response, especially when you consider how improbable evolution really is. The Christian belief that God created the earth and all living species in six days may not be a provable fact either, but the argument of Christians sensibly asks the question: "Why is evolution being taught as fact, while intelligent design is undermined and condemned as a fairy tale? The fact is, that evolution is being taught in schools as a fact, when really, it's not an observable science, and therefore remains an unproven theory. So just how unscientific is evolution? The theory basically suggests that a single-cell evolved into tiny sea creatures, which then mutated into vertebrate fish. From there, the fish eventually and quite miraculously sprouted legs, allowing them to crawl out of the ocean, where they became upright walking fish, which there is no fossil of. Then, these upright walking fish endured millions of years of mutation, where they finally changed into amphibians, dinosaurs, flying reptiles, and rodents. But hold on, just as life in this incredible fish land was just getting started, a huge asteroid slammed into Mexico, setting the entire Earth on fire, with an ensuing nuclear winter, which lasted thousands of years, essentially wiping out all living things except for tiny rodents that lived underground and the fish that never grew legs, and therefore, still lived in the sea.
Could Life Really Find a Way
How any life would survive such an event is a mystery because if an asteroid hit earth as science contends, it would’ve hit earth with the equivalent of a 100 million megaton blast. That means there would’ve been a massive earthquake, about 14 or 15 on the Richter scale, along with countless large magnitude aftershocks. There would’ve been massive quantities of dust ejected into the atmosphere, blocking incoming solar radiation for months, maybe longer, before it settled back to the surface. Meanwhile, Earth would’ve been in complete darkness, temperatures would’ve fallen dramatically around the world. This would’ve created a postulated aftermath reminiscent of a nuclear war. Blockage of solar radiation would’ve destroyed photosynthetic organisms, including all plant life, which would’ve caused serious problems for the rodents living underground that needed food. Not to mention all the widespread wildfires ignited by radiation from the fireball that blanketed earth. The smoke produced by all the fires would further block out solar radiation and would’ve created a cooling effect that made even more problems for any remaining life.
Furthermore, if the impact had occurred in the ocean, it would’ve created a massive tsunami, with tidal waves more than a mile high, which would’ve easily flooded the interior of every continent. Then consider the large amounts of nitrogen oxides that would’ve resulted from the Nitrogen and Oxygen mixture in the atmosphere due to the shockwave produced by the impact. These nitrogen oxides would’ve combined with the abundance of water in the atmosphere and produced nitric acid, which would’ve fallen back to earth’s surface in the form of acid rain, resulting in the acidification or poisoning of all earth’s fresh water supply.
So how does evolution explain how these magic, indestructible rodents and fish could’ve survived without food, been forced to drink poisonous water, while living in a nuclear winter? Underwater or underground, they still would’ve needed water and food.
But let’s just say that they did survive. Science now tells us that when earth finally did recover and could once again sustain life, these tiny rodents crawled out from the dirt, and began a miraculous transformation, changing into elephants, grizzly bears, giraffes, anteaters, bald eagles, sparrows, hummingbirds, tigers, lions, cheetahs, pigs, hippos, Silver-back gorillas, Neanderthals, then onward into human beings. Let us not forget all the insects, horses, cows, goats, rabbits, deer, sloths, poisonous tree frogs, and all other species of every last creature on the planet. All this, from rodents who evidently were made of the same substance that Thor’s hammer is made of. Darwin called the process “natural selection” which to be true, these magical rodents evolved into thousands of species, which then mutated into other species over hundreds of millions of years.
The really amazing thing is that there is no evidence that this ever took place, yet, just because it’s in a textbook, today’s youth and so many more are quick to believe it. Even more amazing, we have physical proof that the stories written in the bible are true. We now know for a fact that there are hundreds of coral encrusted chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea. They are located exactly where Moses would’ve led the Jewish people across as Pharaoh and his army gave chase. We also know that a in 2014, a Chinese expedition found Noah’s Ark on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. Carbon dating of the wood reveals it to be over 4,000 years old, which would’ve been the same time when God flooded the earth. We also have the Dead Sea scrolls, which have also been authenticated as 2,000 years old. Here you have actual proof, carbon dated and scientifically authenticated, revealing age old mysteries and proving how accurate the bible really is. Yet, so many people doubt its validity, preferring to believe in Aliens or Evolution. While most fields of science dismiss the Biblical version of creation, choosing instead to explain the origin of life from the evolutionary perspective, not all science exists so far from God.
Discovery & Denial
In 2015, the world’s most respected scientists from the fields of Quantum-physics and Astro-physics made an incredible discovery that not only stunned the scientific community, but inspired many scientists to rethink their position on God’s part in the creation of the universe. A conclusion which had no shortage of skeptics, but due to overwhelming scientific evidence from the fields of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, which observed and calculated properties of the universe, our solar system and earth, concluded that life, earth, and the universe itself, is not the result of some infinite random chance. As physicist and author Paul Davies said, “the universe did not happen by accident.” The discovery sent the religious community reeling, since many of the scientists who once considered themselves to be atheist or agnostic, were now submitting to the idea of intelligent design by a Creator.
Contrary to popular belief, the arguments for intelligent design are supported by scientific evidence. Known as the anthropic principles, they illustrate how physical properties are "so very intricately fine-tuned," and allow “just the right conditions to sustain life.” These principles are acknowledged and well recognized in the scientific community and are frequently discussed among physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers.
The general consensus regarding the Anthropic Principles, especially among astrophysicists, is that the universe is not infinite and that it did in fact have a one-time beginning. A belief supported by Einstein's theory of relativity, which suggests that due to the existence of matter, the universe is forced to expand, which implies that the universe had a beginning. A beginning that was initiated by a huge cosmic explosion, better known as the "Big Bang.” An explosion which began as a dense infinitesimal singularity, which blew up and ejected matter and massive amounts of energy in all directions. While many biological sciences continue to reject any notion of life being the result of intelligent design, the discoveries made by cosmologists are beginning to make the argument for evolution appear exceedingly untrue, unfounded & unscientific.
One of the few things that both Christians and Evolutionist’s do agree upon, is that the very definition of science proves the validity of their argument. The scientific method is defined as the process by which scientists collectively observe and experiment to construct a reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary hypothesis, which quantitively predicts the existence of some phenomena. Example being: In the predictions of the Big Bang, scientific observation and experimentation proved relativity-related time-changes, the curvature of light around stars, various levels of background radiation in the universe, light elemental abundances and that galaxies are receding from one another due to an explosion. Of course, these all preclude the most recent discovery of gravity waves, which is what led to many of the worlds most respected scientists having to rethink their position on how the universe and life itself all began.
With the plausibility of the Big Bang absolute, scientists conclude with certainty that the universe had a one-time beginning. A conjecture that corroborates the first words written in the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” While evolutionary scientists contend that this doesn’t prove God’s existence, in their guess, they consistently fail to use even the simplest measure of logical thought or reason by overlooking the basic rule of cause and effect. Why? Because to do so only leaves one logical answer. There had to be someone that caused the explosion. After learning about the recent discovery, astronomer Fred Hoyle, who invented the term Big Bang, stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics." Hoyle, who was agnostic, now believes that the Big Bang was not the result of some random explosion, but instead believes it to be an extremely precise and ordered event that could not have happened without intelligence.
Despite their scientific colleagues coming to an agreement, those in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, or any other science that roots itself in evolution, continue with stubborn certainty to believe that just because there was a beginning to the universe, it doesn’t necessarily mean that God is responsible for the explosion that created it.
For such scientists, to consider God the creator of earth, would force them to rethink a lifetime’s worth of atheistic thoughts and Godless beliefs. Their entire wealth of knowledge and social declaration as a wise intellectual would be reduced to a meaningless punchline. An existence, which certainly drives fear into the hearts of men who believe evolution makes more sense than intelligent design.
One in an Infinite-Trillion Chance
Evolutionists are for the most part comfortable living an unrepentant life. They find self-importance in Godless philosophies, while keeping everything connected to biological explanations. They have no time for the antecedents of theology. The see no logic in a world that was quickly established with order and purpose to our existence. They seek scientific reasons, essentially making it harder than it really is. They see no logic in the idea of a Creator being responsible for life’s wonderful complexity. Instead, they rely on the superior intellect of men to influence a radical and unscientific system of beliefs. Men like Oxford University Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins, who believes that faith is a great excuse to avoid the need to think and evaluate scientific proof.” Those who support the theory of evolution applaud Dawkins for quotes like this because his supporters assume that the science has proven evolution as fact, thus eliminating any need for faith or God. The problem with this assumption is that evolution has not, cannot, and will never be proven.
Dawkins and his supporters take a hypocritical stance in their belief that any actual evidence has ever been produced which proves Darwin’s theory, or any proof that disproves the existence of God. In fact, for both, there are none. Dawkins and much of the scientific community seem content on presenting the theory of evolution as a fact, while simultaneously condemning Christianity and those who have faith.
While many will deny its existence in their life, atheists have faith too. Perhaps not in God, but rather the faith they have in science itself. The atheist presupposes the legitimacy of science by using faith in their hope that their guess is trustworthy. In their self-confidence, they find corroboration from empirical evidence, from which the scientific method is able to comprehend. The atheist believes in their own testimony, while passionately confronting anyone who believes in the biblical account of creation.
Atheists debate the existence of God through aggressive and combative candor. This despite many being quite intelligent, which is surprising because it only takes a little empirical research and critical thought to evaluate the evidence and determine just how unscientific the theory of evolution actually is.
Here you have a supposed scientific fact, even though the scientific method depends upon observable evidence that can be repeated through experimentation. A theory that depends upon some random, 400-billion-year-old chemical compound that had to miraculously react in a one in an infinite trillion chance, only to perfectly harmonize and produce something as intricate, as incredibly complex, and with perfect balance that created all systems of life. When looked at from this perspective, it’s not hard to see why Christians, and now it seems many of the world’s leading physicists find no logic to a single-cell theory and its capacity to create something as unique and brilliant as the human mind, body and every other magnificent thing in the universe. That is, unless that single-cell was made by the hand of God.
While paleontologists continue to search for the ever-elusive missing link that will finally give credibility to their belief in Neanderthals, they choose a hedonistic lifestyle, which ironically supports itself by an incomplete fossil record. How can these so-called men of science proclaim there is no God? Most Christians simply stand by the assertion that evolution only works by natural selection and mutations, from which there would be billions of fossils rather than the gaps in the fossil record that still exist today. Furthermore, evolution fails to explain the complexity and brilliant balance that is required to sustain Earth. To interpret the evidence for what it is, the fossil record is at best, unorderly and incomplete. With much of the case for evolution lacking any real proof, why not dismiss any assumption of its authenticity? One only needs to point at the definition of the scientific method to prove just how unscientific evolution really is.
The scientific method is based on the collection of observable data and experimentation. Therefore, they simply point out the fact that the fossil record contains absolutely no record of dinosaurs evolving into birds, or apes turning into man or amphibious mammals becoming whales, thus making the entire premise upon which evolution is based very unscientific. From this argument, Christians claim that evolution is therefore the one and only field of science that decides what the answer is before any evidence is observed or experimentation conducted to reach a conclusion.
Disagreeing with evolution becomes a very rational argument when you consider there is absolutely no evidence of the supposed very slow process where different species change or evolve into other species. Atheists tend to overlook this fact, even lying at times, claiming that the fossil record proves evolution. The fact is that millions of fossils have been unearthed over the years, and none have ever proved a transitional creature ever existed. Christians reside themselves to the fact that the fossil record has very distinct gaps, and the reason for those gaps are because the supposed “missing link” fossils do not exist. Since they don’t exist, according to the scientific method, the theory of evolution loses its credibility.
The longstanding opposition between scientists and religious leaders often boils down to the validity of evolution. The religious suggest an indoctrination of alternate theory that would teach intelligent design in schools, while scientists argue that such beliefs impede our progress in science, education and society. That said, the fact is that most scientists, especially evolutionary scientists, are Godless men and true to atheism. They believe that those who believe in God are ignorant and delusional. UCLA Professor of Anthropology, Gail Kennedy states, “anyone believing in intelligent design is incapable of intelligent thought.” The fact is that atheism leads to a lack of appreciation for the moral dignities of mankind. Darwin spoke of “survival of the fittest,” which leaves religion, politics, economics, education, and the morals of society that govern good conduct and decency without direction of right or wrong. While many atheists contend that faith in science will give rise to continued human progress, it’s science that is responsible for uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons, biological warfare, gas chambers, and the massive system of surveillance that currently watches our every move. Godless science is a dangerous thing.
Which Do You Believe. Intelligent Design or Evolution?
The Complexity of Life
For the Christian, the incredible complexity of life and the universe provides overwhelming proof of intelligent design. A belief that rests on faith, where true and against infinite odds, that some primordial sludge somehow gave birth to the entire universe. A process which required something so incredible as to possibly create the human reproduction system, or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. When you look at a species like the Mantis shrimp, which holds the world record for the fastest punch; a punch so fast that it boils the water in front it and hits its target with the same force as a bullet from a rifle, combined with the fact that it’s the only living creature with a visual spectrum able to detect infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, it becomes very clear that evolution could never have played a part in its miraculous conception. A creature with eyes that have over a million different parts that make it function points not to evolution, but to intelligent design.
Without any observable evidence to support Darwin’s theory, then by pure blind faith alone the atheist accepts evolution as fact. The fact is, that evolution is not science. It’s a theory. A theory that suggests all life came from nothing. For Christians, such is nonsense, as faith and logical thought indicates intelligent creation by God. They see science in the Big Bang because it was God that caused it. For the evolutionist, their scientific faith in Charles Darwin justifies an intellect that scoffs at faith based philosophy. The only problem is they continue to miss the foundation upon which a personal wealth of superior intelligence showcases itself. From a self-important posture they stand firmly and founded upon the scientific method, with claims that it represents the truth baring element which proves evolution is empirical, experimental, even observable science. By blind faith, it is taught, learned and promoted as fact, while fulfilling its intended purpose to transform young impressionable minds into atheistic intellectuals who bare false witness to ignorance, while lacking humility, compassion or the basic principles of moral Christian behavior. Without God, mankind will lose moral direction. Lost, and without a sense of purpose, evolutionistic science will shorten the length by which good and evil are measured. The irony of evolution, which is so often overlooked by those who invest their soul in such a belief, is that Charles Darwin himself was unwilling to sacrifice his soul on the bet that his theory was a fact. Contrary to Internet propaganda, men like Mark Twain, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin were not atheist’s. They all believed in a Creator.
© 2017 The Daily Conservative