Tag Archive: Creation


How do you lead people to conclude that there’s only one truth, without showing them any real evidence to support it? Answer: you keep them from all dissenting alternatives…

blindfold

I was listening to a BBC radio discussion on the subject of parasitism recently (1), the panel being a gathering of very learned and highly credentialed evolutionary scientists. One of the comments which stood out to me was from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. In the course of the discussion host Melvyn Bragg asked the Prof:

So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?

The answer:

Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then.

In Nick Fisher-ese, the answer was, Hey, lay off of that filthy religious language, and stay well away from that “God” thing: we’re talking “science” now, and the two things  are and must remain separate…

We can sum this up in one word: bias. Or we could call it “intentional ignorance”. Or we could call it the language of propaganda.

I went to school: I was taught the state-sponsored view of our origins. I’ve seen all those glossy, realistic TV specials promoting and pushing the pill of evolution ex-nihilo down our throats with the sugar of awesome special effects and incredible extinct animals . But I’ve also been fortunate and blessed enough to see the other side, and in my view, God is the master-scientist. No God-no science. In fact, no God, no universe. Great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton had no mind to censor or hide their beliefs, and no motive to do so.

Don’t forget that according to honest evolutionary philosophy you are just another animal, no more important in the universe than a tape-worm, a tadpole, a tomato, a tree or a tic.

In science-if we really want to see science and evolution as being synonymous-there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” in any absolute sense. Remember, according to the learned Prof quoted above, words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in science. At least he’s being consistent with his beliefs. So all this whining about who colluded with who and who gassed who and who shot who is superfluous and unnecessary, since there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” but only what we decide is good or bad at any given time in history. Hitler and Stalin were no more “wrong” than we are. Death is not a “bad” thing, since it weeds out the weak.

FISH

Picture Copyright © by Nick Fisher

We’re led to believe that scientists have disproved the existence of God-which is actually impossible-and instead they’ve scientifically shown that everything came into existence by itself and evolved all on its own. The truth is that scientists, including those who may quietly be questioning the politically correct view of origins and evolution (and there are some) are all but forbidden to even suggest the possibility that there could be the remotest chance that there may just be something to that “God” thing, for fear of loss of employment, of tenure, of recognition, or of funding.

Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only:

“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.

Evolutionary science intentionally dismisses the remotest suggestion of Creation and possibility of intelligent design. No researcher or professor who wants to keep his job or his funding can factor any hint of divinity or design into his work or his pronouncements. The most polite designation by evolutionists for these two views of science and anything like them, held by many fine scientists and scientifically trained individuals in the Creation and Intelligent Design movements, is that they are “unscientific”.

Evolutionists, who hold the political and legal upper hand in all areas of education and the media, intentionally bar the slightest hint of any evidence, opinion, interpretation or line of inquiry which points towards a designer or a creator. In other words, you-and your children, with the help of your tax money, are purposely kept from considering any alternative interpretation of science to the politically correct one which may lead you to conclude that there is a Designer, unless it’s a controlled exposure designed (!) to ridicule and belittle.

Meyer relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Over nineteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter described this blinkered attitude by saying that people are “willingly ignorant” (KJV): they “deliberately overlook” (ESV) the facts of creation…and the judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Thanks for reading. This post is an edited version of one I wrote last year.

NOTES

1: BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.

2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.

 

Advertisements

The efforts of mankind in and out of “religion” are aimed at shrinking God to a manageable size, so that he’s no longer God but “a” god, and only one of many…

download (5)

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING GOD

Even in the professing Christian world there are many individuals and organizations claiming to represent him who want the rest of us to see God as they do: small, ineffectual, effeminate, powerless, weak-minded and irrelevant. He can’t create and he certainly couldn’t do it in six days. He can’t say anything truthful and he has no ability or will to preserve even what he does say. He has no power over death, he doesn’t know his own mind, his promises are empty and vacuous, and his standards sway in the winds of time, opinion and fashion. In the words of a certain world-leading, head-of-the-Church type person, God “doesn’t have a magic wand”.

The message of the Bible is totally opposite to this attitude of “experts”. God, according to everyone from Genesis to Revelation, is unimaginably huge, powerful and holy. He is so amazing in his being, his character and his standards that were we able to get a glimpse of him in our present form we would immediately die-if only from the shock and awe of seeing him.

…who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? (2 Chronicles 2:6).

The most intense target of the “Make God small” movement is Jesus Christ. Entire religions and pseudo-Christian cults fiercely contest and deny the idea that Jesus was anything more that a prophet, a teacher, a radical, a revolutionary…a man.

 

Any reading of the New Testament to an open mind demonstrates the complete antithesis of this view. Not only is Jesus Christ declared to be the Son of God, but God incarnate, and the creator of all that exists:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him (Colossians 1:16).

800px-po_vodam

The diminishers not only work to wipe away or allegorize indispensable Old Testament books such as Genesis, but fundamental New Testament books also. John’s gospel, they say, is a fantasy. Paul’s writings are faulty. The gospels are flawed and need to be hugely edited, or to use a popular political tool these days-“redacted”. It  makes me wonder why people claim to even be Christian when they don’t actually believe anything of it. Why don’t they take up Buddhism or origami instead?

John Doe’s writing are far more reliable they say, and proceed to create their own version of the ancient Scriptures, when the originals claim to be the very Word of God…a dangerous risk and miscalculation.

John wrote,

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Paul said that Jesus Christ is:

“The image of the invisible God…” (Colossians 1:15).

Philip, one of the twelve disciples, said to Jesus one evening:

“Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered:

“Don’t you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9).

The present-day deniers of Jesus’ divinity claim that John’s gospel is unreliable, so we can’t believe what it says. Really? Then take a look at the other gospel authors, and the writings of Paul, who all preached the same message. In fact, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and therefore God was the reason he was crucified:

“The high priest said to him, I charge you under oath by the living God: tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say, Jesus replied. But I say to all of you: in the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered (Matthew 26:63-66).

Jesus Christ was crucified because he was claiming to be God’s one and only Son. He was “blaspheming”. Therefore, in their minds, he had to be shrunk. The fact that he had worked incredible miracles meant nothing to them. After all, anyone can walk on water, right? Anyone can turn water into wine and make a blind man see and a lame man walk, right?

I’m so glad that my God is much, much bigger than theirs. And I’ll say to him, with Thomas,

“My Lord and my God!”

Atheists mock Christians for worshiping a God who can’t be seen. He isn’t peeping out from behind the clouds, he isn’t sitting on the church roof, he’s never been to university and he doesn’t stop people stealing from little old ladies. August 2013 010

He isn’t hob-nobbing in the White House or even in the Vatican, and you can’t put a piece of him under a scanning electron microscope. He refuses to show up at the lab to be examined or interviewed. Therefore, according to the wisdom of man, God obviously does not exist.

While the world’s atheists tell us how clever they are and how moronic anyone who believes in an invisible Creator is, secular scientists tell us that most of the matter and energy in the universe is “dark”: it can’t be seen, felt, bottled or analyzed, and nobody knows what it’s made of. They “know” it’s there somewhere-they just haven’t seen it yet. According to NASA:

“It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.” (note 1).

While no one’s ever yet seen any dark matter, scientists believe it exists because of the behavior of visible objects in its vicinity.

11043126-dramatic-background--dark-sky-bright-light

Similarly, the “singularity”-that initial blob of mass and energy which evolutionists believe brought our universe into being-was not observed or filmed by anyone at all, and you wouldn’t even be able to see it if you were there to…ah…not see it:

“It is impossible to see the singularity or the actual Big Bang itself, as time and space did not exist inside the singularity” (NOTE 2).

If time and space didn’t exist, exactly where did this object exist, and where did it come from?

Many things which are believed by secular scientists and by atheists-and I use that word “believe” intentionally-have not been observed by any of them. I recently reported on the theory that chloroplasts-vital for all life on earth-came into existence when a large molecule enslaved a “simple” bacterium. This event, confessed the scientist, has never been observed, and neither is there any fossil evidence of the transformation. It’s believed because the chloroplast had to come from somewhere, right?

The_Sun_by_the_Atmospheric_Imaging_Assembly_of_NASA's_Solar_Dynamics_Observatory_-_20100819

Similarly, a scientist I heard speaking about the origin of the sun, admitted that the generally accepted theory is “conjecture” because it was not observed, although they think they can surmise its beginnings from what they are convinced (not know) is going on in other parts of the universe now.

We draw valid conclusions about many properties of nature from their affects or just from reason alone. The problem for us is that atheists and evolutionists, with the help of nominal Christians, have led the majority of people to think that any scientifically sound fact disproves God. Science and “religion” are incompatible, they say. This view assumes that a universe-creator would not have any practical, scientific or mathematical mind-rather like saying that a world-class soccer player obviously doesn’t have any idea how to kick a ball.

Evolutionists and scientists draw conclusions about nature using observation driven by what they prefer to believe and what they’ve been taught to believe, and by their own set of pre-conceived notions, all of which intentionally exclude God. We who believe in an invisible creator do so and draw conclusions about him from what we prefer to believe, from our own world-view, and from what we see and experience in our tangible universe. To us the evidence for God is all around us, and in us. As Paul wrote:

…what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20 ESV).

12308130-close-up-of-sparrow-face

You can read some of my own observations in this regard in my “Acronyms” posts (note 3).

SEEING GOD

In the New Testament we read that John said, “No one has ever seen God” (1 John 4:12).

So if there’s a God, why is it that no one has seen him? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that:

“God is spirit” (John 4:24), and that

“…what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).

One good reason no one has seen God is that we are physical, mortal, finite, three-dimensional beings (four counting time) in a fixed and very limited existence, whereas the God who created this physical universe is an immortal, eternal, infinite, multi-dimensional and pan-dimensional being. We cannot see him with our very finite and limited physical eyes, but we can see what he has made, and how amazingly intelligent and powerful he is.

More than that, we can “see” in our mind’s eye, or in our soul, what God is like from what he’s told us in his Word. We can see from Scripture that he is a loving and merciful God. We can see that he has incredible power and unfathomable aesthetic creativity. We can also see what his character is like when we think about Jesus. The apostle John said:

“No one has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (John 1:18).

534px-Bloch-SermonOnTheMount

 

It’s clear who this “one and only” is that John spoke of, because the entire gospel is about Jesus, and John, in the same passage, said:

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Jesus Christ came to earth as a man to show the world what God is like. Paul said that Jesus Christ is:

“The image of the invisible God…” (Colossians 1:15).

When you look at Jesus, you see as much of God as any human can see.

We don’t have the privilege of seeing Jesus physically, yet. But we can “see” him in the scriptures, thanks to men like John and Paul who gave their lives to tell us about him. Philip, one of the twelve disciples, said to Jesus one evening:

“Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus’ answer also speaks to us, nineteen hundred years later. He said:

“Don’t you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9).

Not only can we see the witness of nature all around us, but when we read about Jesus-about his nature, his character and his attributes, we get a glimpse of God himself.

NOTES

1: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

3: https://nickyfisher.com/2015/05/25/a-spiritual-defense-strategy/

https://nickyfisher.com/2015/06/14/a-spiritual-defense-strategy-acronym-2/

https://nickyfisher.com/2015/07/06/a-spiritual-defense-strategy-66-jell-wast-mush/

 

Looking into the amazing blue sky today, with its white and light-grey cumulus suspended all around, a truth struck me for the first time: there’s a purpose for everything in nature…

IMGP8532

 

Butterflies and bees pollinate; birds spread seed over the land; rock keeps us…on the surface…and clouds transport water. Bacteria and enzymes break things down; worms and insects aerate and irrigate the soil; electro-magnetism transports photons enabling us to live and to see our world in all its incredible glory, and gravity stops us all from floating away.

The moon keeps our oceans, and so us, alive. Our very own star provides energy for the growth of plants, which feed us and expel as a by-product…oxygen. And so it goes on, endlessly.

Everything is here for a reason…including us.

Glory to God!

 

Have you ever hugged a tree? I’m not going to suggest you should, but perhaps it’s time for some of us to give trees and plants-and their origins-a lot more thought than we have up until now…

IMG_1703

A few months ago I shared with you a discussion I heard by a panel of very learned evolutionists on the subject of photosynthesis*. In its scientific moments it was extremely educational-because life is stunningly complex and beautiful, and because truly empirical science is fascinating and enlightening. However, it also included a degree of speculation and wishful thinking, revealing more of the incredible lack of evidence evolutionists actually have for their theories which, they tell us, are conclusively proven. I decided to give it a second visit, and quickly found more gems of speculation which I would like to sample for you here.

I said last time that:

Evolutionists love to claim the moral high ground in the debate over origins by stating that their beloved theory is supported with only empirical and rigorously tested science, whereas, they insist, “ignorant”, “deluded”  and even “dangerous” creationists rely solely on faith, hope and mysticism.

I then went on to outline the explanation they have for the evolution of photosynthesis. Apparently chloroplasts, where that all-important process takes place, “were once bacteria”, and were “captured by more complex cells, something in the order of one billion to one and a half billion years ago”. Well that’s pretty darned specific, eh? What’s in a half billion years anyway? Time just flies by doesn’t it?

The problem with this “expert” explanation for the origin of photosynthesis-and so lfe itself-is that there’s no actual evidence of any such transition from bacteria to chloroplast. There’s just bacteria…and chloroplasts. However, evolutionists are determined to believe in it anyway. As one of the experts on the panel says:

“…there are no fossils of this kind of thing-to date-in rocks, but it must have happened…

The casual listener, and especially the listener convinced of the theories of evolution, would enjoy the discussion convinced that he’s hearing expert scientific assurance in his view of the origin of life. I found it interesting that the genres of this particular discussion are listed on the BBC web-site as “Factual” and “History”. Since there’s no evidence to support the theory of the origin of the process, shouldn’t there be more genres listed: “Speculation”; “Philosophy”; “Faith”; “Hope”; “Religion”; “Propaganda”; “Poppycock”?

Chloroplasts take electrons from water and, in layman’s lingo, “put them onto” Carbon Dioxide, with the help of sunlight energy, the panel tells us. They also discard oxygen as a by-product. Hey-what a weird coincidence! Plants discard oxygen which we need, and we discard carbon dioxide, which plants need…to make food…which we eat…and to discard more oxygen…which we need… and grow bigger, and reproduce… and make more oxygen…and food… Far out man!

August 2013 010

Asked by the fawning host how a series of membranes and enormous complexes of proteins extract electrons from water and “pass them down a kind of a chain”, and eventually push them onto carbon dioxide to make sugars, the expert answers that at the biochemical level the process is “enormously difficult” to understand.

“Why?” says the host.

“Well it’s not easy to get electrons out of water in the first place”. Even waves crashing upon rocks in the largest storms will not release electrons from water.

“But light can do that. Now light doesn’t normally do that: certain wavelengths-UV light-can split water, but by enlarge it requires..a…a biochemical skill which we can mimic, but with great difficulty…and plants just simply do it…”

Host: “They must have evolved to do it over a long period of time… why did they want to do it?”

Answer: “That’s always a difficult question in evolution…”

Why indeed.

I’m not here saying that what is unknown is evidence for God, as some would accuse me of saying. However, the incredible “coincidences” of nature; the inexplicably complex processes-all interlinked and interdependent; the unfathomable intricacy; the unsurpassable beauty of nature, and the sheer lack of hard evidence for the only theoretically viable alternative to Creation by an intelligent and omnipotent God, are all compelling arguments, in my book, for the notion that “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0435jyv

My original post: https://nickyfisher.com/2016/07/22/the-must-haves-of-evolution/

%d bloggers like this: