Tag Archive: Evolution


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

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 life 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/

WAS NOAH’S ARK REALLY AN ALIEN SPACE SHIP?! We can now reveal the results of explosive new research!! The most up-to date understanding of ancient Biblical manuscripts, along with on-site cutting-edge micro-laser technology, has led experts to conclude that Noah’s ark was not a large wooden ship designed to float on water at all, but an ALIEN STAR CRUISER!

Phoenix_landing2

(An artist’s impression of Noah’s Ark)

Dr. Popp E. Cock, leading a most highly qualified research team, has stated the star cruiser was originally used to ferry early humans to the ancient earth, perhaps two million years ago.

Leading theologians, historians and archaeologists have confirmed Popp E. Cock’s research. Among the findings of the latest expert analysis of Bible scriptures are these:

  • The Nephilim, mentioned in Genesis chapter 6, were an alien race from somewhere in our own galaxy, and were overseeing human progress and evolution for up to two million years!!

MAY 2012 to JULY 2013 089

(Artist’s impression of  Nephilim)

  • The Bible reference to Noah “walking with God” (Genesis 6:10) indicates that man was in close co-operation with the Nephilim, who helped him utilize the star cruiser as a rescue ship during earth’s most recent ice-age and following floods!!
  • Words in Genesis originally translated “gopher wood” or “Cypress wood”, the material which Noah was told to build the ark with, are actually ancient Hebrew words referring to incredible metal alloys of an unknown composure! Most likely Noah had to make some repairs to the vessel with materials provided by the Nephilim!!
  • The reason the ark has never been found is that it probably returned to space after the last ice-age subsided: scorch marks matching the dimensions of the ark given in Genesis chapter six have been found in Eastern Turkey!!
  • The Nephilim may be preparing for another intervention in human history, to save us all from the terrible effects of global climate change we’re all experiencing!

Now I’m going to be serious…

WHAT DO I MEAN BY WHAT DO I MEAN?

I created the above story to make a point about faith-or perhaps the lack of it. We all know that there are unbelievers by the million who eagerly accept such narratives while trashing the original in the Bible, but it’s scary to recognize that there are some in the professing Christian world who also prefer to accept such ideas. In fact on almost every Biblical topic they’ll believe and teach just about anything other than the plain, clear record of scripture.

I had a conversation several years ago with a self-professed Christian man which developed onto a full-scale heated debate. I happened to mention to him casually my belief in a certain Biblical doctrine, and he asked suspiciously what I meant by it. When I quoted from the Old Testament to explain my view, he asserted forcefully that, “It doesn’t mean that!” I asked him what he thought it meant, and his reply was, “I don’t know, but it doesn’t mean that!”.

This was the tone of the entire debate. Whatever was clearly stated in Scripture was, in his eyes, open to any interpretation but the obvious one. While he “believed” everything in the Bible, his view was that any attempt to impose an interpretation on it is unavoidably faulty.

It seems to me that if Scripture doesn’t mean what it says, then we and our “teachers” and guides can make it mean what we want it to mean, depending on what the trend and thinking of the day is. With this attitude, truth, even in the church, is being attacked or masked, and the unwary and imprudent are fooled.

 

TELLING THE WORLD THAT GOD CAN’T TELL THE TRUTH OR COMMUNICATE IT

“The Independent” on 28th October of 2014 relayed the message from the Pope that God either can’t tell the truth or doesn’t mean what he says. Pope Francis declared that:

“The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts (note the impressive “experts” word) said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI (1).

Can I hear the funeral march? It’s the death of truth, or at least, the attempted murder of it. Is not the Biblical record one of miracles? Does scripture not declare that Jesus Christ said “with God all things are possible”? Why would anyone want to head a religion which has no divine power or wisdom but only human knowledge?

howling wolf

A recent guest on a certain nationwide Christain radio talk show (another “expert”) chewed and spat out the Bible’s six days of creation. He claimed that the first verse of Genesis chapter one, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, is not a part of the following six days of creation, but is separated from them by who knows how long: perhaps billions of years. While the famous female host fell over herself agreeing with him for thousands of people to hear, my mind went to Exodus:

“Six days you shall labor, but the seventh day is a Sabbath…For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh” (Exodus 20:11).

This very plainly-worded verse directly contradicts what Professor X had said, because in it the Lord-not just Moses- declares that everything, including the heavens as noted in Genesis 1:1, was created in six days. There is no word about any billions of years gap between the creation of the universe and the creation of life on the earth: it’s been inserted by those who just can’t stomach the idea that secular scientists-unbelievers-could be biased and wrong.

The guest went on to explain why he thinks that the days are not days at all. The Bible “says” days-evenings and mornings and all, but it doesn’t “mean” days.

Well, thank you for enlightening me oh great one, because of-course God is incapable of getting it right or making himself clear. We need high priests like you masquerading as believers to straighten us-and Him-out.

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

Admittedly Professor X is scientifically indoctrinated -I’m sorry, I mean “educated”- and we peons are not. But then, so are others scientifically trained, others who actually believe that God can tell the truth and that He created in six days.

For example, I’ve been reading some tremendous articles by the Institute for Creation Research’s Nathaniel T. Jeanson. Jeanson has a PH.D in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University. Other well-educated people also believe the Word of God and don’t feel the need to correct it, such as Dr. Vernon R Cupps, who received a PH.D in nuclear physics from Indiana University  (2).

Should we now remove the miraculous from the Bible so that we can look good in front of the cynics and the atheists and the agnostics? Who are we trying to please: God or man? Of course the creation was not natural-it was miraculous! It was miraculous just as the resurrection of Christ was miraculous. If we’d waited for the resurrection to happen naturally it would never happen at all!

If we really want to please the atheist and the agnostic we will say that there is no God whatsoever, because this is all they will settle for. Don’t expect me to live in that land of wishy-washy hypocrisy.

Lots of people are waiting to get to heaven to ask God, “How old is the earth really?” God may well answer, “It is written…”  (Matthew 4:4). Who then will have the nerve to say, “I know that’s what it says, but what does it mean?”

Phoenix_landing2

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

“Why does it matter?” I can hear some people ask. My answer is that if you’re really believing in the Biblical God for salvation and for your heaven, where are you going to get your basis of authority for that belief from? If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, how do you know there’s a Jesus, or a heaven, or salvation, or forgiveness from your sins, if it’s all dependent on the “experts”, many of whom don’t believe anyway, and if the secularists and evolutionists are right?

So unbelievers like Dr. X can take a hike so far as I’m concerned: I’m going to believe the plain statements of the Bible, and not look for some way of bowing to the wisdom of man.

“WAS NOAH’S ARK REALLY A STAR CRUISER” Copyrighted and first published in November 2014 by Nick Fisher

NOTE 1: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

NOTE 2: icr.org

Evolutionists cite similarities between various animals, and between various plants, as evidence of our ancestry from single-celled creatures. The “evolutionary tree of life” depicts us all descending from the same one-celled creatures as jellyfish, elephants, butterflies and Venus fly-traps. None of these original single-celled creatures were ever observed, and none of their present-day counterparts and none of the tree’s “branch” entities has ever been observed to develop or evolve into anything else. But hope springs eternal in the minds of ardent atheists, and you’ve been sold a narrative designed to shape your entire world-view, and to destroy your faith.FISHAccording to the tree of life, which is, of necessity, nothing more than a diagram: an “artist’s interpretation” or “artist’s impression”, the more structural and genetic similarities organisms share, the more closely related they are and the closer they are on the Tree of Life (NOTE 1). Four-legged creatures are very closely related, as are two-legged varieties such as the “Great Apes” which classification includes humans.

But we all come from the same Designer: the same Creator. Some design features are common in similarly-shaped animals because they work well and because they have the same designer. What do evolutionists expect to see: five legs? Three eyes? Square hips made of wood? Two heads?

Experts have assured us that we humans have very similar DNA to chimpanzees, and that we and chimps are therefore closely related. This claim has been chipped away and exposed by creationist scientists who found bias in the use of data (see note 2 below).

Somewhat more distantly, two-legged, four-legged and no-legged animals are all related. Yes, your distant cousin is a jellyfish. So don’t be surprised if he has no back-bone.

Anyway, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Is the conviction as great as the claim? I haven’t yet heard of any evolutionists marrying chimps, have you?

The “FIVE-LEGGED FISH” picture above is my own creation, © Nick Fisher.

NOTES

1 http://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/darwin/treeoflife.html

2 http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-dna-comparison-research

http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-evaluating-similarities

 

I have to apologize for my title – a greater brain could have conceived a better one…

Scientists aren’t allowed to consider even the possibility of design or creation, under threat of ostracism, ridicule, and loss of livelihood. Consequently such bafflingly complex design features as the human brain are just blindly accepted as being another product of chemicals plus a convincingly long period of time. It’s that baffling complexity which got my own brain thinking about itself recently.Neuron_Cell_BodyAn average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses, so that a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers and internet connections on the earth. One brain’s memory capacity, even by a conservative estimate, is at least a petabyte, equal to the entire world-wide web. Weighing only three pounds, it is super-energy efficient. The brains internal communications occur at light-speed.*

So if we’re part of the onward and upward evolution of life, why is it that even the most talented and intellectual among us only use a fraction of their brains’ potential? Does that make sense to you? Shouldn’t it be the other way around-that the most intelligent are pushing the boundaries of their brain so that their offspring will have greater brain power, given the additional requirement of an incredibly fortuitous mutation?

Someone may protest that the history of man demonstrates evolution clearly: just look how we’ve developed technology and travel in the last few decades alone. That’s not evolution, that’s development. It’s the result of a snowballing God-given thirst for knowledge, in conjunction with times of relative freedom from war, factions, disease and starvation. You could take a man from what is a very backward tribe, still a reality in some remote parts of the world, assuming that he could stand the shock of the change in lifestyle, and put him through school and university. He has brain power too, and it’s not that of an ape-man.Great_Andamanese_-_two_men_-_1875Historians-secular historians-find remarkable the rapidity with which the first civilization in Mesopotamia developed writing, literature, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, business and technology. People weren’t morons crawling out of the trees or muddy fields and making a few marks on a piece of rock or banging two sticks together, one for yes and two for no, in order to communicate. As far back as real history goes, man was intelligent-he just hadn’t got around to building a computer or an airliner yet. He did manage to build such structures as Stonehenge, the Mayan temple and the Pyramids-structures so big and so cleverly put together that we still haven’t figured them out. Some imaginative people have put such structures down to aliens-because, they’re convinced-early man was brainless and clueless. They aren’t allowed or willing to consider the possibility that humans have always had that brain-power potential, right from their creation.

However, some people even in past millennia were able to recognize what professors and educators of today are missing by intent, which is that we humans have been created physically complete and ready to function, and designed by a mind far above our own:

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

(Psalm 139:14 NIV).

* http://www.icr.org/article/human-brain-beyond-belief

TOP DIAGRAM: NEURON CELL BODY, BY BRUCE BLAUS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: