Increased functionality/​usefulness requires intelligence?
Yes. Just because crystals form complex, mathematically explained patterns naturally does not mean natural life-useable information for functionality ever increases on its own. Just because the cloud immediately after a nuclear explosion looks like a mushroom does not mean anything resulting from the explosion is more useful than what was there previously. There is a difference between beauty and information inventing itself. The proliferation of beauty, of symmetry, of harmony, all around us is actually perfectly good evidence of a divine Creator who wanted his creation to make sense and wanted it to be enjoyed (Jeremiah 29:11). Have you ever witnessed productivity improve in nature? I don't mean reproduction, I mean efficiency, capacity, capabilities, etc. Nothing except that which is motivated by intelligence ever becomes more productive. You might witness a random event where something good happened by accident, but productivity never increases on it's own. The second law of thermodynamics demands that any closed system deteriorate over time and therefore become less productive/ effective/ efficient. Any true productivity increase requires intelligence. Astronomical and biological evolution would be examples of countless productivity increases so can't be a real phenomenon. (Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 40:28).
What's this about two 'kinds' of science?
» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» Amazon: Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was Information
» Why are butterflies colored? (Interference)
This is nothing new, it's just not discussed in most schools (public nor private). Science is the study of knowledge, and is a subset of philosophy (which is the study of being). In the name of science we can observe how things are (observational science) or where they came from (origins science). Observational science has changed our lives dramatically in the last couple centuries, bringing steam engines, space travel, the Internet, cell phones, etc. The credibility of the former should not be shared with the later. For example knowing how an airplane works does not help you understand in any way how the first one was invented (created).
Why can not creationists keep their faith from interfering with their interpretation of the facts?
» Inventing a Flying Machine
Since the probability of all components of irreducibly complex systems evolving or otherwise developing independently at the same time are so huge, especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, it takes at least as much "faith" in evolution as a religious person has in God to believe evolution has ever happened. So it is not a matter of leaving faith out, but instead a matter of choosing what to have faith in. God did not try to trick us when he created the world, it is our own expectations, presuppositions and prideful desire to disprove God that get in the way of seeing the truth. By the way, completely blind faith in God is not faith at all, but ignorance. The God of the Bible wants us to be educated (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) about things he has & continues to demonstrate to us and then to trust him (have faith) on things that we are not able to understand (Hebrews 11:1,3). Observable scientific "evidence" alone should not be cited because by reading the links at the bottom of this page you will see that the same evidence is consistently and seemingly convincingly used to prove the points people make from both sides of the argument! This reinforces the point that the real question at hand is not "where did we come from" but instead "can we take God at his word, period?" (Isaiah 66:1-2, John 3:32-33 MSG)
Are Creationists really scientists, or are they just religious zealots with an old book of stories?
» AIG: A look at some myths about scientists
» TalkOrigins, an anti-creationist index to creationist claims
» Quotes about God to consider if you think science leads to atheism
While it would be irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in evolution, it would be just as irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in creation. My wife saw someone wearing a tee-shirt claiming to list some scientific inventions made by Evolutionists and by Creationists, and of course the Evolutionist list was long and the Creationist list was completely empty. Being ignorant is dumb but lying is evil. Let us be clear on some basic facts.
What about Occam's Razor?
- 900 years ago science was simply "knowledge gained by study" but only in the last hundred years has the dictionary qualified this to "the physical world", in part to differentiate it from philosophy. Philosophy comes from Greek words meaning "the love of wisdom" and has a broader scope including knowledge (epistemology), reasoning (logic), being in general (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), and human conduct (ethics).
- A scientist is simply someone who uses the scientific method to study something, presumably one of the mainstream sciences. (But remember 'mainstream' is defined by culture and isn't absolute.)
- The scientific method is a method of research in which a problem is identified, data are gathered, a hypothesis is formed from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
- Here are a few scientists who might be read about in secular history books (minus their religious convictions) who believed in special creation by the God of the Bible (Acts 17:24-25).
These people were not religious zealots, they were rational people who used the scientific method to learn about the universe and then asked themselves what they could do with that knowledge. A persons presuppositions about creation are not a qualifier nor disqualifier for whether or not a person can be considered a true scientist. Francis Bacon said a "A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back." Note the reason I haven't listed many recent (currently living) creationists is there are too many, and modern scientists are obscure. These listed above are world famous. (Psalm 115:15, Psalm 124:8)
||Father of the scientific method (sirbacon.org, wikipedia)
||Formulated the three laws of planetary motion (wikipedia)
||Formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, co-discovered calculus, etc. (wikipedia)
|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
||Co-discovered calculus (wikipedia)
||Father of modern atomic theory, cataloged first periodic chart of the elements (wikipedia)
||Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, invented the electric motor (creation safaris, wikipedia)
||The first speedometer and first true automatic computer (creation safaris, wikipedia)
||Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, one of the original pillars of the Smithsonian Institution & National Academy of Sciences, insights into electromagnetic relay lead to the electrical telegraph (creation safaris, wikipedia)
|James Prescott Joule
||Developed what became first law of thermodynamics, got a unit of energy named after him (creation safaris, wikipedia)
||Proved biogenesis, formulator of the germ theory of disease (wikipedia)
||First to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics (disbelieved in evolution but not exactly a creationist, creation safaris, wikipedia)
|James Clerk Maxwell
||Formulated the unified equations of electromagnetic fields (light, magnetism & electricity), made first color photograph (wikipedia, ASA3)
|Raymond Vahan Damadian
||Invented the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner (wikipedia)
» Quotes about God to consider... if you think science leads to atheism.
» AIG: Can Creationists Be Scientists
» Amazon: Fred Heeren's Show Me God (see especially bonus section 1: fifty believers who lead the way in science)
» Wikipedia: Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions
In general this asserts that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. It also includes a minimization of assumptions. None of us are informed enough to know that evolution nor creation are truly "simpler". However, that being said, there is nothing that even comes close to explaining why the universe is orderly if the Big Bang was real. There is no reason the laws of physics should exist, there is no reason the universe should be consistent. Yet they do and it is. There was nothing to cause the laws of physics to form, and even if there was (which there was not) then how did they form with such simple equations? (Is the universe "simple minded"? If so then why has it obviously matured but not obviously gotten smarter?) Creation is not a concept by itself, it is a package deal with the Bible (or at least the Jewish Torah) which is why it is so hard for some to stomach. Let us consider a summary of what Evolutionists think is too "complicated" to be possible.
Why can't Christians just work to redefine "evolution" to mean "natural selection"?
This may be "deep" but it is not more "complicated" than evolution.
- God made the entire universe and everything in it. (Genesis 1:1) If you want to play the causality game and now ask "who or what caused God" then see one of the links at the bottom of this answer. More to the point now is that God created the universe. We know because he told us but he did not tell us he had a beginning. (Isaiah 26:4, Jeremiah 10:10, Romans 1:20)
- God made Satan but then Satan decided he was better than his creator, deserved to take God's place and attempted a coop. (Isaiah 14:12-15, Revelation 12:7-9)
- Satan and his followers fail and are put in their place. (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6)
- Satan is furious with God and resolves to do anything he can to attempt to hurt God (Revelation 13:6). Since humanity is God's favorite creation, Satan realizes the best way to try to hurt God is to trick us into turning against God too. God allows Satan to try this (Job 1:6-12, Job 2:1-7) in order to allow us to choose for ourselves between good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17, Proverbs 1:32-33)
- Satan appeals to Eve's pride and lust, as well as Adam's pride and complacency, and convinces them to commit the first human sin. (Genesis 3:1-7)
- All of mankind (which was just two people at the time, but has grown) is cursed by God for our disobedience, and the universe with us. (Genesis 3:8-24, Romans 8:20-22)
- Satan and his followers exploit their supernatural powers and continue to use our pride, lust and complacency against us in effort to keep us from the purpose God created us for (Acts 17:26-27, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Peter 5:8)
- We play right into Satan's trap and some of us choose not to believe the truth, condemning ourselves to confusion, doubt and conflict in life and damnation after that. (Mark 16:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 8:31-32)
- Some of us realize what is going on and notice that what the Bible says seems to fit the facts. Some of these believers go out into various places around the world and encourage strangers to believe in the God of the Bible. Amazing wonders and miracles happen to and around those who believe Jesus. When these miracles occasionally defy the laws of physics they essentially prove that the God in whose name these miracles happen is real. (Acts 12:6-10, Acts 28:1-10, Hebrews 2:4)
- Jesus came to Earth to prove God loves us in a way we can relate to and that fulfilled the prophesies He gave the prophets hundreds (and thousands) of years prior. And He says He will come again. His first visit was as savior (John 3:16) and His second will be as judge (Matthew 16:27). We only get one chance at life then we continue to live with the consequences of our choices in life for eternity (Hebrews 9:27).
» Wikipedia: Occam's Razor
» ICR: Everything has a cause
» AIG: If God created the universe, then who created God?
» Jesus Freaks (DC Talk)
» End of the Spear
Because we must realize there is literally a spiritual war going on (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) and this would send a mixed message to the world. Any attempt at this is missing the point. The strongest proponents of molecules to man evolution don't want to believe in God. They love it when creationists use their terminology because then they can truthfully read your quotes word for word, out of context, to people who are undecided and easily convince them of the lie. Can you imagine moving to Israel and setting up a new humanitarian aid group, honestly hoping to help Jews and others alike, but naming it a concentration camp and having a corporate identity (symbol) of the swastika rather than the red cross? That would be ridiculous, you would never redefine those things for the Jews because it would dishonor the people who suffered from the ideas that symbol represented. The idea of redefining evolution would not only fail for similar reasons, but it would also simply be legalistic and have no impact on truly reaching people with the Truth of God. This would be yet another needless compromise to make both sides happy but only end up appeasing the evolutionists. Because they know that good people tire and all people rebel, and eventually our efforts to redefine the word will grow weak and we will be in such a habit of using their terminology that we will adopt their theology, too. The only thing (as far as evolution goes) for a believer in Jesus Christ (or even a Jew) to do is to lovingly, educatedly, encourage people that the Bible is the word of God and that it should be taken as serious Truth. If you do not take my word for it then read what God says in the Old Testament in Exodus 23:13,33, Deuteronomy 7:25 and Deuteronomy 12:4,29-32, or in the new with Colossians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
By the way, in some circles "natural selection" is also referred to as "microevolution." This is not a good idea for Christians for similar reasons as just stated.
Thursday, October 26, 2017