Dan's Meditations

Sunday, May 14, 2006

On Evolution and Intelligent Design

I am in the middle of reading a great book, Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey. I highly recommend this book to everyone.

I challenge all you evolutionists and anti-ID people to make your case. Explain to me how it is more reasonable to believe that non-living matter naturally morphed into living matter, and that living matter evolved into all the species.

I have several scientific objections to this.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Natural processes tend to cause an increase of entropy (or disorder for the lay person). In fact, the entropy of the entire universe is forever increasing.

2. My sources tell me that there are all kinds of gaps in the fossil record. Apparently, this was true during Darwin's time, but he optimistically guessed that over time, archaeological discoveries would fill in the gaps. It has been over a century, and it appears that the gaps will never be filled in. While there have been some adaptive changes within species (microevolution), the fossils do not show a gradual process of one species evolving into another species (macroevolution). Also, if macroevolution was true, then it would seem that there would be hundreds of millions of animals that were somewhere half way (or quarter way or three-quarters way) between our supposed ancestors and human beings. As it is, the species all seem to be very unique. Sure there are similarities between apes, chimpanzees, and humans. But there are still very distinctive differences between those species. Where are the ape-men?

3. The principle of irreducible complexity. Apparently, Darwin believed that cells were fairly simple - little blobs of goo. Since then, the field of celluar microbiology has taken off. Today we know that each living cell is like a factory. There are thousands of functions going on all the time. Enzymes are utilized to time everything. Cells are incredibly complex. So, the principle of irreducible complexity says this: A mousetrap does not work without all of its key components assembled together in the proper way. Merely having most of the key components will not enable you to catch mice. You need all the key components, and they all have to be assembled in place. Then the mousetrap will work. So it must be with cells. The functions of a cell can not be performed, unless all the key chemicals are present and assembled in the proper way. Remember, cells are like factories; much more complex than mousetraps.

4. DNA - No one denies that there is all kinds of information stored in the DNA of living cells. DNA is as complicated, if not more complicated, as computers.

Now, evolutionists would have us believe that all of this came about by chance. But common sense seems to say something different.

If you go to the beach and you see complex sand castles, you don't infer, "Wow. The wind and the waves made that?!" No. You infer that a person was there who put those sand castles together.

If you have the game of Scrabble, a pet dog, and a few children, and you discover the Scrabble board with all kinds of legitimate words assembled on the board in a way that was obviously according to the rules of a Scrabble game, you don't infer that the dog must have got into the Scrabble game. You infer that the kids were playing Scrabble.

If you are a detective, and you discover that someone died because of poison rather than natural causes, you infer that he was murdered or perhaps committed suicide (design).

If you are an archaeologist, and you discover writing on cave walls, you don't infer that the weather must have been pretty peculiar in that place, but that people were there.

So, then, common sense seems to say, given the incredible ordered complexity of life, that we didn't happen (by chance), but that we were designed by an Intelligence.

However, millions of evolutionists find this ridiculous and even abhorrent. This has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with philosophical commitments. These evolutionists have determined that there must be a natural explanation for all of life. The universe must be a closed-system. The supernatural is impossible. Indeed, science has been defined to marginalize the supernatural. But these ideas (there must be a natural explanation / the supernatural is impossible / the universe is a closed system), are not scientific. They are expressions of philosophical and, dare I say religious, beliefs. Science has been defined by some as applied naturalism. They have presupposed philosophically that there must be a natural explanation for everything. They are so committed to this, that they will disregard the common sense of honest inductive science. We see ordered complexity; we see life in all of its wonder and beauty, and we come to the inductive conclusion that we are the result of Intelligent Design.

But this is not permitted to be taught in public school biology classes, because the secular fundamentalists fear theocracy. This is utterly crazy, but they actually do have some rational fears. ID suggests that there is a God. If there is a God, and we have been designed by God, then the rest of the Christian gospel and theology might follow. Simply put, many people hate the gospel. So, even without substantial scientific evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution, and even with substantial scientific evidence that seems to support the hypothesis of ID, due to secular humanistic naturalistic philosophical commitments and presuppositions, evolution continues to be taught as truth in public schools, and ID is not. This is not objective scientific inquiry. This is politics at its worst.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Why College?

I thought (and continue to think) that I am pretty counter-cultural and radical. I am realizing how much, I tend to just go with the flow of society, without questioning for a moment some of the most fundamental and basic trends of typical American lifestyles.

This is not to say that what is popular is necessarily wrong all the time. But they very often are wrong. It is worth thinking things through.

For example, why go to college? I was just browsing the internet today, and I saw an article: Five Reasons to Skip College. Check it out: http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/04/15/dont-go-college_cx_lh_06slate_0418skipcollege.html

That sparked my curiosity and my mind. So, then I did a google search. What alternatives are there to college? I came across this: http://www.patriarch.com/college@home.html

This is radical. It also is mostly all (if not completely) Biblical. And there seems to be a lot of wisdom here. It is also a hard calling, which is, of course, why most people don't do things this way. But one of the big reasons why our nation is so plagued with problems is due to the rejection of anything and everything that is hard.

We live our lives obedient to the socialist state, and for so many of us, we never give this more than a passing thought.

Of course, most of us go to college and send our children to college, because we lack the confidence and the means to adequately prepare ourselves or our children for life in the world. So, we write a check, and place our trust in the hands of the leftist controlled educational elite.

Is this wise?

If we have the means to spend tens of thousands of dollars on education, then do we have the means to provide a great education without spending that kind of money? Do we really need to spend so much money in order to learn? Can't we get on the internet and/or go to a library, and learn things that way?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all college all the time. But I do think that this is an issue that we ought to think through.