Tag: Science and God


I once gave a creationist book to a friend who was an unbeliever. A couple of days later he’d read the whole thing. His only comment was that the book was entirely negative-that it effectively attacked and cast great doubt upon the concept that all of life had evolved, but that it “didn’t prove creation”…



My friend seemed to think that any book of negatives (though it really wasn’t all negative) is fatally flawed. I respectfully suggested that if we didn’t evolve we must have been created-or at least designed-since there are no real alternatives. You could opt for the third possibility if you wish-the notion that we aren’t really here, we only think we are. If you subscribe to that idea why are you thinking that you’re reading this, and exactly what is doing the thinking, and what is thought?

One of my favorite creationists was Dr. Duane Gish, who had a Ph. D. in biochemistry from the University of California, and worked in biochemical research for eighteen years before giving himself to creationism. One of his tactics was to highlight the lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, and although this method was “negative” in the sense that it was all about what isn’t there to support evolution, this lack of evidence for evolution heavily supports the idea that life was created in “kinds” of animals and plants, and didn’t evolve from nothing via the first single-celled organism after all.
While evolutionists will link various creatures distributed across the fossil record by pointing out that these organisms have one or two similar features, Gish’s answer to this claim was simply that they all had the same designer and lived on the same earth. He would then go on to stress that there is no museum in the world where you can go to see a series of fossils in which, for example, legs gradually get shorter and disappear, which would be a seemingly necessary evidence that a cow evolved into a whale. As he would say, with all the billions of fossils in the world, you ought to be able to see at least a few fossil series in which one creature is clearly seen to be changing into another.

I’ve been to the natural history museum in London. There you can see fossils-and some of them are very impressive; you can see “artist’s impressions” of how they think things changed over millions of years, and you can read stories of how evolutionists believe things happened, but you cannot see any actual, real, fossil-evidence transformations.
This is one of the many “positive negatives”of creationism: if we did not evolve, we must have been created or at least designed.
I was recently reviewing a book I read called “Darwin’s Doubt” by Dr Stephen Meyer*. Meyer, a well-known proponent of “Intelligent Design”, effectively and powerfully documents the weaknesses, flaws and the holes in Neo-Darwinian theory, and mentions some of the secular scientists who now are questioning it or even calling for a new theory of evolution. No, you aren’t likely to hear about that on TV or read about it in educational text books-nobody wants to lose their job.
Intelligent design people, many of whom are well qualified to join the scientific debate, don’t openly refer to any form of creationism, God, gods, scripture or “religion” to make their point, even if they do privately have faith in a creator. Instead they determine to “go wherever the evidence leads”, rather than doggedly attempting to shore up Darwin’s flawed concept. It’s their conviction that the evidence leads to the fact that we, along with all of life, were designed. Just for the record, I consider myself a Biblical creationist.

Meyer’s book could be said to be “negative” by those with an axe to grind, a grant to secure, a job to keep, a conviction to defend or a lifestyle to justify and promote. However, its discussion of the complexities of life is most uplifting and far from negative, and its message that we are not the product of randomness, fantastic chance, mutations and natural selection, but must have been designed by an incredible mind is, to the unbiased, exciting, stimulating and inspiring.
One of the major “positive negatives” in “Darwin’s Doubt” (my term not Meyer’s) concerns the building of body plans during an organism’s embryological development, and a process vital to neo-Darwinian theory known as “mutagenesis”, by which the genetic information of an organism is changed resulting in a mutation. The problem is that beneficial mutations are all but impossible to observe or induce, and mutating the genes that regulate body-plan construction only destroys animal forms as they develop from an embryonic state.
Neo-Darwinism relies on the idea that untold millions of beneficial mutations, along with natural selection, have given rise to life as we know it today with all its many intricate and successful forms. But scientists-developmental and evolutionary biologists-don’t yet know just how mutations could positively affect the regulatory genes during embryological development. Biologists know that these genes would have to be successfully altered “very early” on in the development of the embryo in order to build a new body plan and so produce macro-evolution: any later and the body plan is already established and being built.

More importantly, even if new proteins and genes were able to arise via mutation and natural selection, there’s a far bigger problem remaining for the theory of macro-evolution, writes Meyer. To build a new animal and establish its body plan for its offspring, something would have to organize these new proteins and genes to play their parts in distinctive cell types. In turn these distinctive cell types would have to be organized to form distinctive tissues, organs and body plans. However, Meyer documents that up to the present time:
“…developmental biology has shown that mutations affecting body-plan formation expressed early in development inevitably damage the organism”.
Meyer gives a simple analogy for the layman to grasp what he’s saying. He writes that if in the manufacture of a car an engineer changes the length of the piston rods in the car’s engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t run. As this process relates to an organism, Meyer states that one change early in the development of an animal will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes and entities later in the organism’s development.
Meyer gives the example of a fruit fly acquiring by mutation an extra pair of wings. The fly will not be better off: it will be crippled because it lacks, among other things, a musculature to support the use of its new wings.
The kind of mutations the evolutionary process would need to produce new animal body plans-early in development-don’t occur. It seems to me that if they did, by now we would be seeing all kinds of weird and wonderful new creatures on TV created by scientists. The kind of mutations the organism doesn’t need which make only very minor and not macro-evolutionary changes-later in development-do occur. Of course, natural selection-variation-is also at work, but only within kinds of animals: finches remain finches, big beak or small.
I’ve written a few examples of how negatives in the subject of origins can actually be positives: positive evidence for the only possible alternative to the evolution of all life from nothing, which is creation or at least design. You can find some of these negatives yourself, without being scientifically trained. For a starter, go to the museum and ask to see a series of fossils clearly showing one creature turning into another

*“Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen C. Meyer, published by Harper One.


Ardent evolutionists and atheists believe that each new scientific discovery, revealing another facet or detail of the incredible make up of our universe, drives God further into the realm of the fairies, and ultimately oblivion…


They see God only as a mystical, mythical creation of human imagination. As in the sorry case of the man who can’t see the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees, they totally miss God and see only what he’s made. It doesn’t occur to them that apart from him there would be no science to observe-and no-one to observe it.

Dr. Stephen Meyer, in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” writes that contemporary science is bound fast by an unwritten law called “methodological materialism”. This law asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature by reference to strictly material causes: scientists may not invoke the activity of any creative intelligence. In other words, God is banished from the science that He created and upholds.

I recently read about a new secular cosmological theory which attempts to reconcile quantum theory and general relativity (note 1). It suggests that there was no big bang to bring the universe into existence: the cosmos is eternal after all, as was believed by secular scientists for most of history until the 20th century. The Biblical teaching that it did indeed have a beginning, and a beginner, has remained throughout the flip-flop.


No big bang! But wait a minute: haven’t we all been led to believe (as in ” faith”) that the big bang has been conclusively proven? Aren’t facts funny things! Ah, but “facts” need to be adjusted now and then in order to fit the story, perpetually under construction, of a cosmos without a creator.

I’ve also been trying to get a better grasp on Einstein’s relativity as it relates to gravity: how or why does an object “fall” in obedience to that warping of space-time? Of all the supposedly scientific explanations, I found none that satisfactorily answered my question. In fact, at the end of the last article I read, titled “What Is Gravity?”, after all the semi-technical jargon, the reference to research and theory throughout history, and the puzzling diagrams, I read the following words:

“So what is gravity? The truth is that at the most fundamental level, no one really knows…”

The article continues:

“We may have to wait for ‘quantum gravity’ to be completed before we all know a better answer…” (Note 2)

Scientists are searching for such things as “gravitons”: proposed particles of gravity, as yet hypothetical and unobserved. It’s amazing to me that some people will spend a lifetime searching for tiny hypothetical particles, but no time searching for their creator, when the evidence is all around them, in plain, beautiful, profoundly intricate view.

Note 1: http://www.livescience.com/419958-theory-no-big-bang.html

Note 2: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/what-is-gravity.html






Some churches are doing a lot more “proselytizing” these days, and I’m sorry to say that I’m not referring to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ…

howling wolf


This coming weekend many churches professing to be “Christian” will be celebrating “Darwin Weekend”, arranged around Charles Darwin’s birthday. Yes, it’s a “Howling Wolf Ministries” weekend special! I’m not sure how the theory of evolution can be celebrated as though it were something beautiful and uplifting. Richard Dawkins has called Neo-Darwinian evolution “elegant”, but what can be “elegant” about struggle, death, the destruction and extinction of the weak,  and meaninglessness followed closely by total annihilation?

From the point of view of those in the Church who’re claiming to believe in God and evolution at the same time, there should be more fear than celebration. Why? Because if the Biblical accounts of the creation are untrue or merely figurative, as they must be if evolution is true, it naturally follows that the rest of it is unreliable and possibly devoid of meaning also: there is no assurance of salvation and heaven, no savior and no hope, and there are no absolute standards of right or wrong for the world of mankind to be anchored to. And who has the right, the gall, the nerve, the arrogance to play God and to claim to know which parts of the Bible are right and which are wrong, or what that figurative language is intended to mean, if anything?
We all know that evolutionists, including those in the Church, trash the first eleven chapters of Genesis, or claim that “it doesn’t really mean what it says”, or that we need the direction of hyper-intellectuals, people who know more than the rest of us, to tell us what’s true and what isn’t. In this case Hyperman has become “god” and the high priest of Truth, while the rest of us-the ignorant rabble-must bow and scrape to his eminence: you can count me out. But these Christo-evolutionists also have to deal with numerous other Bible passages, slashing and chopping away at the word of God and replacing it with their own. For example, in Exodus we find these words:
“Six days you will labor and do all your work, but the seventh is a Sabbath to the Lord your God…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 day” (Exodus 20:8-11).
The Psalms carry the same message::
“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth…let all the people of the world revere him, for he spoke and it came to be” (Psalm 33:6-9).
Jesus, who some of these purveyors of truth are hoping will “put in a good word with the man upstairs” for them, frequently quoted the books of Moses, which include Genesis and Exodus. On the road to Emmaus:
“…beginning with Moses and all the prophets he explained to them what was said in all the scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).
Jesus referred to the creation, in a way that echoes Genesis:
“Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female…?” (Matthew 19:4).
He also said:
“If you believed Moses you would have believed me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47).
So when these self-appointed “experts” attempting to take over the Church begin to alter and diminish the message passed down to us via the blood of the martyrs, they are, for themselves and for those who pay attention to them, putting concepts such as sin, salvation and eternal life on a very slippery slope.

FISH(The Darwin Fish, copyright © Nick Fisher)

Why chop at the Bible? Why not just write your own “holy book”, minus the miracles? How can you select what you decide is true and throw away the rest, as though it were any cheap old rag you’re preparing to publish? Why not just be up front about your beliefs, or lack of them, and start your own religion? You could call it “Darwinity”.
The subject of this post is “Throwing Truth to the Ground” (taken from Daniel 8:12). There are so many ways that truth is being thrown to the ground in our time, but none are more significant than the huge effort to convince people-particularly our children-that they evolved from rock just like slugs and worms did, or that God mysteriously caused them to evolve via the same route as slugs and worms over hundreds of millions of years, and were not really created at all. If you’re one of the convinced, I challenge you to recall for yourself exactly what evidence you have personally seen that convinced you. I don’t mean count how many different kinds of cats or finches there are: they’re still cats and finches, and they aren’t turning into anything else.
I’ve been reading a book by Steven Meyer called “Darwin’s Doubt” (1). Meyer received a PhD from the university of Cambridge in the philosophy of science after working as an oil industry geophysicist. He’s a proponent of “Intelligent Design”, and such people aren’t out to validate Biblical creation. Indeed some of them are not Christians, but simply want to research and draw attention to the reasons for their conviction that nature has been designed, and didn’t just come about by random processes.
The one thing that’s struck me most while reading “Darwin’s Doubt” is that the majority of evolutionists (though not all) when confronted with or when discovering facts that put a wrench right in the middle of the cogs of neo-Darwinism, just start building other cogs. They have no intention of backing out of their faith in naturalism, no matter what obstacles they encounter. After all, they don’t want to lose their funding, their jobs, respect among their peers, and their hope in total annihilation without judgment. Meyer’s honesty and willingness to search for truth rather than to bury it, incurring a considerable amount of opposition and ostracism, impress me. If only more were man (or woman) enough to do the same.
Meyer’s book is a little difficult to follow in places: it’s semi-technical. But I’d like to relate one of his experiences here.
Meyer described research carried out in the early years of the new millennium by secular chemical engineer Douglas Axe, and Alan Fersht, a professor at the University of Cambridge. It revealed the rarity of proteins in genetic sequence space, and therefore the incredibly long odds against any mutation along with natural selection ever finding a functional protein to act on. These results along with other equally stunning research results, in the words of Meyer, demonstrate that no “Neo-Darwinian scenario for producing a new gene is at all plausible”.
Axe’s research was peer-reviewed and published in the “Journal of Molecular Biology” in 2004.

Later that same year Meyer published a peer-reviewed scientific article in a biology journal called “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington”, published out of the Smithsonian Institution. The paper was about the Cambrian explosion and the problem (for neo-Darwinian evolution) of the origin of the biological information needed to explain it. Meyer cited Axe’s results, explaining why the rarity of functional proteins in sequence space posed a severe challenge to neo-Darwinism.
However, because Meyer also suggested intelligent design as an explanation to the origin of biological information, a “firestorm of controversy” followed. Museum scientists and evolutionary biologists from around the country were furious with the journal and its editor for allowing the article to be peer-reviewed and published. After a lengthy smear campaign the editor was demoted. One of the rumours designed to destroy him was that he had no degrees in biology. The truth is that he has two Ph.D’s, one in evolutionary biology and one in systems biology. And you were led to believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution was all conclusively proven and supported entirely by unbiased scientists, weren’t you!
Meyer related on radio how his book received one-star reviews (the lowest rating possible) on Amazon even before it was published. However, he has since aroused considerable scientific interest. He’s also written a sequel which answers critics of Darwin’s Doubt.

Darwin’s Doubt discusses and names some scientists-including evolutionists-who are now questioning Neo-Darwinian evolution, and who are searching for other explanations for life. Isn’t it ironic that while some honest scientists and evolutionists are questioning Darwin, the Church is inviting him in!

“DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design”, by Stephen C Meyer. Published by Harper One.


International_Space_Station_17_April_2002 The Institute for Creation Research’s April issue of “Acts and Facts”  included an interview with a NASA astronaut who’s a Christian (he isn’t the first believing astronaut). Col. Jeffrey Williams went into space three times and spent several months on the International Space Station. You can watch/ listen to the interview or read it here:




(Picture “Peacenic Pup” by istolethetv from Hong Kong, China)

One of my first ever introductions to the fact that we live in a world of falseness came at the age of twelve…


I’d just started to develop an interest in pop music, and there were several songs in the UK top-thirty at the time that I liked. Finding myself with more money than usual one weekend, I spotted a compilation album-vinyl at the time-which had the top twenty hits on it. I was so happy to think that I could acquire all of these songs at one “incredibly low price”, equivalent to the price of just one of them if bought separately, that I shelled out all my cash for the record.

At home, the terrible truth dawned on me within four bars of the first song, and then was confirmed by the next: these were cover-versions of the original recordings, and pretty poor ones at that. I’d been duped into spending my money on something false. I think the album went in the garbage in short order. However, a very valuable lesson was learned.

Now, many years later, it sometimes seems that almost everything man-made is presented as something it isn’t: man-made fibers posing as wool, resin posing as wood, root beer without roots or beer, “family-size” meals which are barely big enough for two, ice cream without cream, leather shoes without  leather, money made of paper holding no actual value, smokeless cigarettes, brick cladding, veneer, plastic metal…and the list goes on endlessly. It even extends to relationships, with two “Moms” or “Dads”, perhaps neither one really being Mom or Dad.

And the scariest thing is that we seem to have come to love that which is false. We spend our money on huge lotteries, refusing to consider that the odds are many millions-to-one against winning. Vast numbers of people check out of reality every day and engross themselves for hours in a computer game, while others spend their time in TV-land instead of working to make reality better for themselves and others.

“Stars” are created when someone is made to look and sound like they have talent and beauty when in real life they may be no more talented or beautiful than the average Jo or Jane on the street. A singer fakes a “great” voice which he’d never use in the shower and receives worship and adoration from his fans. A TV personality poses as a holy man while taking millions of dollars from his flock. A president is chosen and empowered by spending billions of dollars on a glitzy campaign (and both sides do it) backed by his admiring press which hopes to see him fulfill all its own pet schemes.

It’s my view that we’re so used to falseness that we don’t know what truth is anymore-another Orwellian fulfillment.

The atheist and the evolutionist try to shove the word “science” in our faces, hoping we’ll never even consider the possibility that it was God who made that science, that it was God who created the laws of nature so as to bring about a physical universe of order and design and beauty, or the fact that creationists were the founders of modern science. They refuse to acknowledge that “in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17), and instead concoct and develop a story which negates any reference to the Creator. It’s the epitome of falseness.

“There is no god”, they say. “Here’s why everything is so amazingly complex and orderly-it created itself!”.

Away with your cock-and-bull story: I’m sick of falseness.