Science and The Creator (Who Am I? Part 8)

The Fusion of Science and Religion. Reason and logic applied to questions of our existence. Famous Scientists who believe in a Creator of the Universe. Examining the Creator and the Creation

This is part 8 of a series on Who Am I?

Man’s Search For Meaning

Unearthed in Mesopotamia, in the ancient ruins of the communities of Sumer (3500-3000 BC), are the oldest written records still existing that have been discovered to date.

From these earliest times, humans have pondered earths mysteries, wondered about our existence, and if there is purpose in what we do each day?

We also have mused on life’s meaning, attempting to come up with answers. It was true in Sumer–it is true today.

It was learned that the people of this community worshiped the god “Utu” among other gods. Utu was the god of the Sun; representing justice, morality, and truth in their civilization. ⁽¹⁾

Gods and Deities

In Sumer, they created different gods to support these personal beliefs. This made sense of the world they knew and had to survive in. The people of Sumer had deified the powers of the natural forces of the world about them; creating names, images, and stories of gods to account for the processes they observed in nature.

Therefore, they worshipped these forces as gods, realizing their dependance upon them, such as the sun, moon, stars; the weather, the seasons— all supported as Deities, in support of their success in their personal survival and strived for happiness. They desperately relied upon the powers of nature in the growing of their crops, the fertility of their union, the success of their personal endeavors to prosper and survive. Believing these critical forces they relied on were controlled by gods – who could be prayed to and worshipped; helped the people have hope something was looking out for them and could be appealed to for help.

But there is another point here I think we can discover – and it also relates to our times.

Do we believe in God, merely because we think we need him? Or do we believe in God, because we see in the circumstances about us, something requiring an explanation?

Universal Constants

No matter what people might believe, this world is here, and it goes on. There is a science and a power behind it, regardless of how we choose to live our lives, or what we choose to believe. Our beliefs do not affect the truth of it in the least. The “Truth” (as we have discussed) “is what is”, whether we see it and attempt to understand it or not. Our science and knowledge are not responsible for and did not create the powers of the world or the universe. Our science, is our attempt to define, explain, and understand the life and the powers that were already here –and going on.

Even if we refuse to acknowledge, or ignore, or even lie about the truth of the reality behind the natural world; or try to deceive ourselves so we don’t have to recognize it; THE TRUTH OF THE POWER AND LAWS OF THE NATURAL WORLD AND UNIVERSE DO NOT REVOLVE AROUND US! IT IS WE WHO REVOLVE AROUND THEM!

This world and its natural forces and laws, and the life upon its surface was here before us. It is the reason we exist; and it will be here long after we are gone. If someone wants to know the “TRUTH OF EXISTENCE”, it is up to them to start from a point of honest questioning.

Thus far we have reasoned through the questions of science and the human experience, and even looked at some religious teaching that has helped define the foundations of who we might be? and what the truth of existence is? We have contrasted theistic and atheistic possibilities – to help discover logically and reasonably what the truth is. We have examined the question: If life comes from a creator or random chance? We have examined if life has meaning; or no meaning but what we make of it; or assign to it?

If we have learned one firm fact, or inescapable conclusion from the facts… it is that INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS BEHIND OUR CREATION, and THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE on this unique planet we call earth.

But what about beyond the earth? Are there broader proofs in the universe?

Gravity and the Laws of Motion

Sir Isaac Newton was the central figure of science for the 17^th century, and master of mathematically theory; inventor of calculus, and credited with the discovery of gravity and the laws of motion, which is only a partial list of his accomplishments. At the age of 23, he discovered the three laws of motion, Inertia, Force, Action & Reaction.

It is curious to me that he was spoken of during my elementary education as an atheist. Science, I was taught, is the abandonment of God for proper scientific reasoning. Today, as the greater body of Newton’s work has come to light to be better known, those claims are refuted. Today, as more people have educated themselves, and Newton’s full body of work has been reexamined, it is clear he was no atheist.

Newton believed in an active, and personally involved Creator. Newton had well-formed views on the subject of man’s origins.

In his work, Principia, Newton addresses his beliefs on the creation of the universe:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being….This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God…or Universal Ruler”⁽²⁾ -Sir Isaac Newton

Why would Newton say this, if “natural science” is as Modern Science claims, a refutation on God? It is because Newton was not conditioned to begin his scientific studies with his mind already made up about Gods existence. He was willing to let the facts he was uncovering speak for themselves.

Modern Science today has no interest in supporting truth, but it has proved it is the exact opposite. It has been put in place to support an agenda, which is anti-God. We have let those facts speak for themselves. Whenever the true science, as we have been able to demonstrate, supports intelligent design –it is ignored and covered up. Professors won’t even go there, and entertain such a discussion. By not acknowledging these points of truth, they turn science into a political tool in support of atheism, not truth.

Newton’s advance mind impacted the world in his time, with discoveries and conclusions of which still hold up today, as they are at the heart of true scientific mathematical relevance and theory. In his works on gravity and the laws of motion, he saw in all of this: order, and deliberate intelligent design behind the universe.

Living also before Charles Darwin, Newton knew the arguments for a self-existent universe which Darwin was to embrace; but rejected them.

“Blind metaphysical necessity [materials and energy that make up the universe], which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.” ⁽³⁾ –Sir Isaac Newton

It was clearly Newton’s belief, that metaphysical necessity (things of and pertaining to life’s existence and the nature of reality,) required intelligence as the “cause” of ordered things. That a blind guide– such as a self-existent force, lacking intelligence or awareness and intellectual capacity, could not produce the variety of life we find in the world, or produce the order of the universe.

Newton found that there was order in the movement of Bodies in space, and their movements were exacting and predictable in mathematical calculations. This did not support a chaotic system of abstract confusion, and mere chance. It was evidence that some power had taken the chaos and ordered it into balance, and structured harmony. As if for a purpose!

Mathematics are deliberate, and sequential; the exact opposite of chaos. For these basic cosmic materials to come into a state of order, and to be constructed into “a variety of things” as Newton calls them, they must reasonably have been acted on by intelligent processes to be ordered into different more complex forms “suited to different times and places”.

Similarly, the raw materials of this earth will remain in their natural state– unless acted on by intelligent humans. It requires an intelligent being to turn clay into pottery, metal ore into tools shaped for our use; wood into homes and furniture; or animal skins into a belt to hold up our pants, or shoes for our feet. As I have pointed out earlier: our modern-day cars, cell phones, and all intelligent inventions are evidence of intelligent life. Scientists themselves would declare this so, and they do!

Similarly, Newton suggests, I find order and deliberate mathematical theory of sequential precise measurements and events, in the heavens. These systems of order in the heavens can be marked by mathematical calculations. The earth, in particular, needed this consistency to function as it does to produce its ordered seasons, like clockwork each yearly cycle, as it revolves around the sun providing a stable atmosphere so life can exist, and even thrive.

The moon, in its exact size, shape, and precise distance from earth, provides a miraculous counterweight to the sun, helping the earth maintain a consistent speed and distance from the sun, as it helps to support and cradled it. Keeping earth from being overpowered and drawn closer to the sun, or preventing earth in being overcome by the suns gravitational pull, which could cause the earth to wander into a wobble in its rotation, drifting away from the consistency of its centered equator, and effecting our polar regions to change their axis center, creating violent weather conditions on earth. ^{(4) (5)}

It is also significant earth has only one moon, unlike other planets. Multiple moons or even two in conflicting orbits, could have pulled earth off this delicate counterbalance, preventing or destroying any life here. Another item in the list of lucky coincidences that just happened to take place so this earth could function properly and work the way it must- to support life. This lengthy list of necessary coincidences just keeps growing and growing – as our science advances.

Our Moon, like so many other needed specific requirements for life existence, turned out to be the exact size, distance, and orbit as a companion to earth, to make it a hospitable place to allow and support abundant life.

It takes intelligence to produce intelligent things. Mathematics and mathematical formulas come out of reason and intelligence, and a consistent process that is guided by a superior intellect. Complex diversity: which life is, could only be explained by “a Being necessarily existing”, with deliberate intent to take control of inanimate things and order (organize) them to become animate. This cosmic order in Newton’s mind, denotes a creator on a much grander scale.

“It is the dominion [the control over the universe and its properties] of a spiritual being which constitutes a God… And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a Living, Intelligent, and Powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is Supreme or most Perfect.

He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done… he constitutes Duration and Space.” ⁽⁶⁾ –Isaac Newton

The Laws of Relativity

Generations later came Albert Einstein. Spoken of today as an atheist among the scientific circles, but Einstein, himself, declared he was no Atheist.

“There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views.” ⁽⁷⁾ –Albert Einstein

Einstein did not embrace belief in a personal God, who was actively involved in our daily lives. He felt organized religion was not based in sound science. He saw God more as an intelligent energy and Spiritual substance. His statements in this regard, is what atheist’s use to claim- he too- was an atheist.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” ⁽⁸⁾

Einstein found his religious philosophy most closely connected to the views of Spinoza.

Baruch (de) Spinoza lived from 1632 –1677. He was a Dutch philosopher living in Amsterdam, Holland, and is considered one of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment period.

“We must, indeed, all expel anthropomorphic representation of the divine.” ⁽⁹⁾

–Baruch Spinoza

Anthropomorphism is the act of assigning or suggesting the characteristics of humans to an animal, a god or an inanimate thing. ⁽¹⁰⁾

This is what Einstein felt was the issue with organized religion, in assigning human concepts to the infinite. Spinoza’s belief that this was inappropriate, was closer to Einstein’s concept of what God would be, a non-human entity. And that we as humans, looking at our own needs, insecurities, and thoughts– have passed them onto the Divine nature of God. That this tendency is reflected in religious development and thought down through the centuries as humans have expanded the traits and characteristics of God to include our own native reality as beings.

In this fashion, he spoke many times of God as a Spiritual Being he believed existed; which was the power behind the universe, but not necessarily a force directly tuned in and connected to human existentialism, (those issues we face in the course of our existence).

He believed a supernatural power or spirit must permeate space and time, for he saw evidences of order and mathematical certainty within these universal laws.

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” ⁽¹¹⁾

–Albert Einstein

He believed the only explanation for such complexity – was an intelligent force, far more advanced than humanity; which explained the harmony in the things he discovered related to physics, and the reason behind such a calculated broad universal creation.

“In this universe, there are countless planets, and each of them follows an orbit while revolving around their axis. God reveals Himself in the orderly manner of what exists!” ⁽¹²⁾

-Albert Einstein

In his discoveries, he had a similar awakening to what Newton had, that there is order in natural planetary law. In his Theory of Relativity and Quantum Light Theory he was able to mathematical calculate his beliefs before he could prove them. He felt this was proof that universal creation was the outcome of intelligence in operation throughout the universe.

“We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” ⁽¹³⁾ –Albert Einstein

Einstein did not see a conflict between science and a belief in God; he saw it as an informational gap, needing to filled. That science only lacked the development to comprehend and provide an explanation for Gods power and abilities.

“… Science today cannot prove the existence of God, because science is not yet developed enough, it is not because God does not exist.” ⁽¹⁴⁾ –Albert Einstein

Although Einstein saw fallacy in organized religion, he also believed it held merit for mankind; and did push the human race towards a higher sense of personal morality and integrity. He particularly pointed out the virtues of the Judea-Christian religious philosophy.

“The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations.” ⁽¹⁵⁾

– Albert Einstein

It is clear, Einstein believed there was no other reasonable or logical conclusion to explain what we see in the universe; and which can account for things we witness on display–except in the handiwork and intellect of an all-powerful God. That any scientist who would look upon such things (and was being honest), could not reason otherwise.

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” ⁽¹⁶⁾– Albert Einstein

That is what our most celebrated Scientist of the 20^th Century declared; and that evidence still stands today as well as his own testimony to it!

Creator, and the Creation

As a part of learning and comprehending existence, and to comprehend that which we find around us in this world, it is necessary to understand two states of condition. The relationship between the Creator and the Creation.

What is the Creator?

The Creator is a self-functioning independent intelligent force; capable of reason, comprehension, knowledge retention, assessment, problem solving, construction, experimentation, improvement, planning, and execution. The Creator does not rely on any outside influence to exist or create. The Creator is self-contained, self-sustaining; and can direct external materials and forces to its will.

What is the Creation?

The Creation is the outcome of the will and skill of the Creator. It is not self-sustaining, it is not self-functioning, unless the creator has made it so; for it is not a work of itself– but of the creator who designed and created it. It is not capable of building itself, or replacing its missing parts, because it cannot operate beyond its design and level of capacity or intelligence. It can only do what it was designed to do, for it does not have life in itself. Without the Creator, it would not exist, and it cannot continue once it has run down, and its parts cease to function.

If you attempt to examine the creation, and attempt to understand its working parts, systems, and function, (being an intelligence creature yourself) you may be able to notice and discover much it is capable of. But when it comes to duplicating it, we have run up against an impassible wall. Billions of complex parts that were carefully engineered and that work together in a way our limited science has not been able to repeat or replicate. It is too far beyond us.

To explain how it came into being, you must credit the creator who created it; for with millions of years of speculated human existence, accumulated knowledge and growth, we still are only scratching the surface of its complexity. Yet those who lead our science community still want to believe this was the outcome of chance forces coming together. In an attempt to explain the unexplainable, they have assigned to a word “evolution” the powers of a supreme creator.

“It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures.” ⁽¹⁷⁾

As is demonstrated here by Hubert Yockey, a Ph.D. in Physics, DNA molecules and matter alone cannot explain life. Their order of arrangement is not a natural occurring phenomenon. They do not have the capability in themselves to exist. They follow a complex program placed withing them they did not create. Some external power and influence outside of them is the only explanation for their existence.

Yet Modern Science has wished to suggest a concept called “Evolution” created all life. Evolution is merely a word. It is not a system, an intelligence, or a factory that can organize or create anything. It has no creative powers, and no intellectual capacity. It is a word, meant to encompass a system, based in a theory, that we know with modern science has been proven false, and cannot explain life. How did the DNA get its information? How was matter organized? WE DON’T KNOW! DNA has shown us the miracle of life, but not the method of how it was actually accomplished.

“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.” ⁽¹⁸⁾

– Dr. John J. Grebe

Grebe firmly makes the point, once the DNA had been discovered, and genetic engineering was found to be behind how life was constructed, Darwin’s organic evolution was proved to be outdated and a fraud. It has no explanation for a logical system that could produce DNA.

To look to the creation for all the answers, when you find a level of intelligence involved that far exceeds your own, shows a complete lack of understanding or admission of the facts.

The creation can only yield the sum total of what it is, what it does, and what it was designed to be. All life therefore eventually dies, and can only exist within the limitations of its design. We can leave the creation (planet earth) and enter space in our space crafts, but we must return or die. To find these perfect and precise conditions of biological existence– we would need to look for another carefully constructed world; operating on these same principles of creation. So far this has been impossible to find.

We should all stand humbled by these facts, and desire to understand that Creator; to who’s eminent power we owe our very existence.

These truths were not lost on Albert Einstein, who said:

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.” ⁽¹⁹⁾

“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.” ⁽²⁰⁾

We all have the capacity within ourselves to be creators on a simpler scale. We learn by our own discovery what it takes to create. That a level of experimentation, acquired intelligence, and skill is needed in the long process behind our earthly creations. Once this creative process has yielded a successful result, we can realize by our own intellect and experience that things just don’t magically create themselves.

Dr. Michael Denton shares:

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” ⁽²¹⁾

Famed researcher and astronomer Fred Hoyle was credited with saying:

“Supposing the first [organic] cell originated by chance, is like believing a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” ⁽²²⁾

Sir Isaac Newton credited the existence of the universe as only being explainable, through the operations and involvement of a superior creator acting on his creation:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”⁽²³⁾

Both Newton and Einstein, and many other men of education and science, could see this truth— and have declared it. And understood they were observing the workings and science of a God with capacity far beyond them, who used logic and reason in the creation.

“There is an author which transcends the material and the matter of which these [DNA] strands are made. The author first of all conceived the information necessary to make a cell, then wrote it down, and then fixed in it a mechanism of reading it and realizing it in practice so that the cell builds itself from the information…” ⁽²⁴⁾–Chemist, Dr. Wilder-Smith

The relationship of Creator and Creation is as basic as existence itself. It is at the foundations of this world, and the known universe.

When we talk of human kind, and what man has created, we don’t get confused about the relationship of Creator and Creation. We look at man and his intelligence, and we look at the creation of man–and there is no comparison. The one could not exist without the other.

We would not look for the truth or answers in the study of the creations of man alone, to learn how they were constructed. We would also study the method, science, and technology humans developed and invented to build their creations. This is the whole purpose we have Universities and Trade schools and Apprenticeships; to pass on the knowledge of how to create. We would never be able to figure out how to make a cell phone or an automobile simply by suggesting they created themselves, and looking to find a way to explain how they put themselves together. We know that would be a foolish concept. But when it comes to ourselves or the biological creation, and the universe– suddenly Modern Scientists use different reasoning, and want to ignore the clear intelligence and complexity of biological life. Those currently educated and who we have hired and tasked to fill the seats of higher learning suddenly become blind to these facts; and spend endless time and money chasing an impossibility. They live in a lie of their own making to avoid giving credit to the Creator.

Why? Because they are not interested in proving Gods existence. They want to be in the place of god, making all decisions and living life with no restrains over what they can or cannot do. No moral fetters to require an expectation of them to obey laws and commandments that will restrict the way they wish to believe and live. They want to shape society to live within their illusion, and keep us supporting a system that worships and follows them.

We are all free to believe what we wish. The mind is free to believe. But the facts of what we know, show the argument and reason behind this existence stands on immutable laws and science—which we are but learning. Yet this knowledge and power was being wielded in the universe before we, or this earth and solar system, were ever conceived.

We are but a creation, of a creator we are trying to understand.

To be continued . . .

_______________________________________________

Sources:

1. Utu, Wikipedia, (as of June 8, 2021) Utu – Wikipedia [Under Ancient First Writing]

2. Christine Dao, Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton ;Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy; Institute for Creation Research Website: http://www.icr.org/article/3859/

3. Christine Dao, Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton ;Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy; Institute for Creation Research Website: http://www.icr.org/article/3859/

4. NASA Website Earth’s Moon, Overview | Earth’s Moon – NASA Solar System Exploration

5.Mysteries of the Moon revealed – including how it stops our planet wobbling and why it’s spinning away from us | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

6. Sir Isaac Newton, Principia Mathematica, 1687

7.Did Einstein Believe in God? – bethinking.org Einstein in a conversation with Hubertus zu Löwenstein, in Löwenstein’s book Towards the Further Shore (London Victor Gollancz 1968), p.156

8. Did Einstein Believe in God? – bethinking.org In 1929, Einstein was asked by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram.

9. Spinoza’s Philosophy Summary (the-philosophy.com)

10. www.yourdictionary.com/anthropomorphism

11. Did Einstein Believe in God? – bethinking.org Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981)

12. God Existence According to Albert Einstein, https://thebl.tv/culture/gods-existence-according-to-albert-einstein-and-his-last-wish.html

13. What Einstein thought about God, the Universe, science and religion (zmescience.com)

14. God Existence According to Albert Einstein, https://thebl.tv/culture/gods-existence-according-to-albert-einstein-and-his-last-wish.html

15. This article appears in Einstein’s Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 – 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. New York Times Article

16. Did Einstein Believe in God? – bethinking.org Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981)

17. Hubert P. Yockey, “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, No. 1 (July 7, 1981), p. 13.

18. Dr. John J. Grebe, physicist, “DNA Complexity Points to Divine Design,” Science & Scripture, Vol. 3, No. 3 (San Diego: Creation-Science Research Center, 1973), p. 20 (p. 20 “No scientific evidence has shown the slightest chance of one code mutating to another.”). ORIGIN OF LIFE—Does evolutionism supply the answers? – ChristianAnswers.Net

19. Albert Einstein, The Quotable Einstein, ed. Alice Calaprice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.195-6. https://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

20. Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; https://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

21. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), p. 264.

https://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

22. “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105.

https://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god

23. Christine Dao, Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton ;Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy; Institute for Creation Research Website: http://www.icr.org/article/3859/

24. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, The Origin of Life (PO Box 1167, Marysville WA 98270-1167, USA: Eden Films and Standard Media, 1983) (Creationist motion picture).

Scientists Speak Out Against Evolution(Who AM I, Part 7)

Who Am I? Part 7, Scientists Speak out Against Evolution. Evolution today is considered closed science. The truth is that Evolution has many inconsistencies, and problems. They are explored here by real scientists.

This is part 7 of a series on Who AM I?

Concerning The Scientific Consensus of Evolution

You may think that all Modern Scientists are on the same page when it comes to a belief in Evolution. Especially with a lack of any dissenting voices. This leads people to believe that Modern Science today is in complete agreement on the Evolution question.

But in my search to find answers to my own questions, I discovered that there are other opinions. A few brave souls have risked ostracization from the scientific community, as the unpopular realists and critics of the theory; and are willing to admit to its flaws and weaknesses.

Dissenting Voices on Evolution

Dr Michael Denton (a British Scientist), recognizing problems that exist with the theory of Evolution has stated:

“Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” ⁽¹⁾

Michael Denton, who holds an M.D. from Bristol University, as well as a Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College in London, and has been active in molecular biology; makes these striking arguments into the scientific fallacy on which Evolution rests. His work was a great find in expounding certain conclusions I had reached; as well as additional weaknesses he demonstrates exist within “Evolutionary Theory”.

His expertise in this field of biology, brings pertinent and authoritative evidence as a chemist in understanding the details involved at the heart of the issue.

He successfully reveals many of Evolutions fallacies and lack of credibility behind the facade Modern Science has constructed to conceal it.⁽²⁾

“In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity [evolutionary theory] has always necessitated on retreat from pure empiricism, and contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have struck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach … It was Darwin the evolutionist who was retreating from the facts.” ⁽³⁾

— Dr. Michael Denton

Denton’s findings and conclusions bring into view the selective nature with which Atheistic Scientists have cherry picked their ideas and theories. They have only allowed to be published those views in alignment with Darwinism. It is from this body of material the curriculum for the classrooms of academia are assembled; so that their belief system of Evolution cannot be attacked, challenged, or unseated from its throne.

You would never know it—because you almost never hear it said; but it has come to my attention that many scientists do not believe in, or cannot accept evolution; or at least admit the theory has serious problems and contradictions. The reason these voices are not heard in the main stream culture; is because the Atheists won the upper hand in the courts in the 1950’s and 60’s and have continued to hold the legal system as a tool of support to beat back religious thought or anti-evolutionist views and teaching from the class rooms.

This shift away from a religious foundation in favor of a secular one in our nation has taken place gradually over the last 90 years. I will go into more detail about this later.

This political wall of separation is carefully guarded and maintained— so, the illusion continues.

Since the mainstream culture has been educated for 70 years in these selective false theories, it has successfully produced a host of proselytes and defenders for the evolutionary atheist cause, among religious and non-religious alike. Most of you will be hearing a different side to the argument for the first time— from accredited scientists.

Curiously, not all of the voices pointing out Evolution’s contradictions are Theists. Some are Atheists who see the contradictions in science and are willing to call them out. These opinions shared below never reach the mainstream culture; but are out there to be found for those who will seek. I maintained an asterisk next to the names of scientists who also claim that they are Atheists.

“The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” ⁽⁴⁾ —*Dr. Albert Fleishmann (Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Erlangen University)

“Science positively demands creation.” ⁽⁵⁾—Lord Kelvin (Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Glasgow for 53 years.)

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” ⁽⁶⁾—*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France)

“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” ⁽⁷⁾— *James Conant (Chemist and former president, Harvard University)

“The overriding supremacy of the myth [of Evolution as scientific fact] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. ⁽⁸⁾

—Dr. Michael Denton

A Falsehood is Preferable to the Truth

I have discovered these voices, and many more, testifying that evolution is questionable or false science; which remains a theory because its unprovable. Yet Modern Science proceeds as if it is real. Why would this be the case? Why would you want to keep certain facts of your theory from seeing the light of day? Why would you want to ignore significant problems within your thinking and belief system— if it helps you to determine what is actually true? Why would you put forward a theory— which in its foundational premise is in contradiction to the facts of what science is currently revealing; and continue to defend it and conceal its fallacies?

BECAUSE EVOLUTION NEVER WAS ABOUT TRUTH! If it was, the scientific hierarchy would admit to its limitations and impossible claims. So why doesn’t it?

Evolution was concocted to provide an alternative to creationism. For those who do not believe in God, they needed an explanation for the existence of things. Anti-God theories of the unfolding of life have been around since the beginning of time for those who did not believe. But since believers have always been in the majority, the surprise is why most creationists have also accepted the theory of evolution and natural selection. They have just decided since this is the popular theory that has risen to the top in academia— that this was the way God worked to bring about creation. Most uneducated people will believe what they are told if it sounds reasonable. Most people are busy with other pursuits in life, and don’t take the time to study these issues and reach a level of education so they can make decisions for themselves what they believe.

Most people today have no idea of the history, because they grew up after this deception had already taken place and gone into effect. They accept it, and defend it with the same arguments they were taught in their education. The additional problem is that too many scientists in the field are followers; and are mostly comfortable just repeating what it is that they have been told by their educators and superiors. They are told a positive story with all the surface answers provided, and they don’t look beyond.

Modern Science scrutinized religion; and modern professors attack religion, and shame students if they dare mention a belief in creationism.

Students go to houses of higher education to learn and get a degree. To succeed in your education: good grades are required. Of course, students do not want to challenge the person who is going to be grading them— for fear of having their grades negatively affected. Everyone who has entered higher education knows this. They live it.

If you advance to become a teacher or professor, those who dare step outside the lines of the official doctrine of Evolution, are also shamed; and will not be published or listened to in the scientific community at large.

But the free-thinking scientist who will go below the surface, and is really seeking, and asking, and working things out in their own mind, begins to see the contradictions, and the side stepping that is going on. They can see the truth, and are revealing it.

Once an idea like Evolution has become the foundation of a society and everyone has given it national credibility, it becomes so institutionalized and the people are so invested in it— no one dares question it. There is so much at stake. If Evolution were suddenly declared to be false, it would set off a firestorm! It would wreck careers, upset all of academia, and undermine the foundations of science as it has been written about and established for 70 years in all or our institutions. Sometimes people accept a lie because it is easier than believing the truth. Yet that does not change the fact, that everyone is invested in and believing a lie!

“With the failure of these many efforts [to scientifically prove evolution], science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” ⁽⁹⁾—*Loran Eisley

Eisley states very accurately, once the Atheistic scientists of Darwinism and Evolution could produce no conclusive proof of their theory, and in fact advancing modern discovery refuted and undermined their early foundational scientific philosophies (rather than supported them), MODERN SCIENCE WAS IN THE SAME POSTION IT ACCUSED RELIGION OF! The necessity of resorting to a stance of blind faith in its beliefs; and postulating mythical (invented) hypothesis to bolster up its lagging theoretical claims which could not hold up under the light of true advancing science.

Modern Science does not want to lose the ground it had gained of false legitimacy in society. It has done this by successfully dethroning God, and enshrining Atheism.

“Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution.” ⁽¹⁰⁾

—*Julian Huxley (Evolutionary Biologist, Eugenicist)

Julian Huxley (a noted atheist) here expressed the boone that Darwin gave to Atheism. The Atheists desire and need for an alternate theory to God’s existence and creationism. To be taken seriously and rise to positions of power and influence, Atheists needed to destroy God.

Atheism has always been a religion; and created its own doctrine and articles of faith to appear to be official, and legitimate.

Darwinism is masked in a mystery of complex theories (few are educated enough to understand), concepts that appear logical and reasoned on their surface. These assumptions gave Atheists the tool they needed to clear the playing field of religion and any discussion on God. To hold this illusion in place, Evolutionary theory must be protected and supported at all costs. Truth is not a part of the equation! Just control, societal respect and honors, and the rewards of fame and fortune.

They had to resort to concealment of the facts of science, because the real modern science had turned on their own theories. They could not tell the truth or let the truth be known— because to lose the theory of Evolution, would be to lose the Atheists foundation for their belief system, and their control over Modern Science in the culture.

The more complexity they could spin into their theories and assumptions, the better they can divert your attention, leading their audience into their desired conclusions. This also keeps people focused on their ideas, rather than on significant weaknesses missing from their theory that are not explained or delt with. This also averts probing unanswerable questions evolution can’t deal with.

Keeping the façade of Evolution and Natural Selection in place, allows them to keep up appearances and keeps public attention centered on their narrative, so the truth does not get out. This keeps them in control, and deciding the kind of world we live in; which is the world they desired and wanted to create.

The more detailed and complex the lie, the better they can deceive potential converts, followers, and believers in a respectable foundation made to appear as true science. This also allows them to embrace their own deception—creating a broad-based illusion they could all sink their teeth into.

This was the realization that James Conant of Harvard University came to understand.

“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” ⁽¹¹⁾— *James Conant (Chemist and former president, Harvard University)

This body of scientific confusion was constructed to hypnotize a less educated audience into focusing their attention elsewhere. As Michael Denton and others scientists have exposed: when people believe the science is already settled and the facts already exist that “Evolution” and “Natural Selection” are proven theories— and have been for over 100 years; you have already won the battle for legitimacy. Even though the whole foundation is built on unproven speculations and invalidated hypotheses.

That is why we must look at the actual science and what it proves, and not these popular “myths” ⁽¹²⁾of the past. And the truth is: Evolution is a theory which “is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination”.⁽¹³⁾ And “a fantasia which is neither history nor science”. ⁽¹⁴⁾

The Scientific Imperatives Behind a Complex World

When it comes to viewing the big picture scientifically: with the diversity in our world of millions of life forms living in a contained and balanced system on this earth, self-perpetuating and beyond our scientific capability to recreate— or even produce a single working part of its cellular construction; the attempt to explain the entirety of it all away as a bunch of happy accidents, which kickstarted and then guided all the magnificent life we observe genetically to exist in this harmony and balance; it cannot square with logic or reason. This case of molecular complexity and irreducible systems being required for life, is strong enough on its own to verify the need of an advanced intelligent creator to produce it. But Evolution also has other challenges.

Evolution is also mathematically impossible as a workable theory.

How could all of these necessary components come together sequentially, in the precise and right order to construct this life, in the magnitude of millions of individual parts; to produce the biological world we see before us?

To challenge this claim of Evolution in a simple mathematical comparison, scientist and author A. Cressy Morrison, (an American chemist and former president of the New York Academy of Sciences) points out if life was made up of even just 10 basic components that had to come together in exactly the right order, but must be arranged in that exact order from 1 to 10 to work; what are the odds of this possibility happening by mere chance? It doesn’t seem that difficult, does it? This has been one of the most basic claims of evolution as a viable theory. That unintelligent chaotic life found a way over billions of years of evolution.⁽¹⁵⁾

Dr. Morrison was responding to claims made by Ernst Haeckel (a German Zoologist), that “if given water, chemicals, and time, he could create a man”. ⁽¹⁶⁾ [Clearly Haeckel and his successors were premature. They are still struggling to create even the first living cell, or even a working component of a cell; let alone a man.]

Morrison states that if you had 10 coins in your pocket numbered from 1 to 10 and attempted to draw them out in numerical sequence; if you took them out one at a time, but then each was replaced so that 10 options remained with each pick, (which are far better odds than the countless combinations lying on the ground in the real world) your chance of drawing out first number 1, and then number 2 in succession would be 1 in 100. Your chance of drawing 1, 2, and 3 would be one in 1000. Your chance of drawing out 1,2,3 and 4 would be one in 10,000 and so on, until your chance of drawing out 1 to 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. This demonstration reveals how enormously figures multiply against mere chance! ⁽¹⁷⁾

I discussed the conceptual reality of “Irreducible Systems” in part 6 of this series, and again this was mentioned by Dr. Denton. An irreducible system is one in which all parts are required to have a functioning system. If even one of them is removed then the system cannot work or function. That is what makes it irreducible.

Dr. Dentons has shared his findings: “that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world…containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION ATOMS…” ⁽¹⁸⁾

If getting just 10 components of a system to come together in sequence with only 10 options available, is one chance in 10 billion; how about getting one hundred thousand million atoms right!

Again, for evolution to have ever occurred, this would have been the only path upon which it could have come about, as we understand the structure of life. The assemblage of the parts of a living cell, or the genetic coding meticulously arranged in the DNA, (all of which are required for life, and irreducible) proves to be an impossible task for a self-constructing universe through accidental forces to ever have been a mathematical possibility of happening.

After 60 years of trials, and no success, what science is up against, is akin to trying to demonstrate that if you move things around and shake them up enough, eventually a cell phone or an automobile is going to build itself and pop out on the other end.

Such a concept as evolution is as impossible as Haeckel’s flippantly ignorant assumption: that “given water, chemicals, and time, He could create a man”.⁽¹⁹⁾

Your common sense will tell you, that is just not going to happen. And you don’t need to be a scientist to understand that.

As Dr. Denton pointed out, biological life is“far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” ⁽²⁰⁾

Biological life, in its most simple form (a bacterium), being far more complex than any of the inventions we as humans have constructed, is an “inescapable proof” of INTELLIGENT DESIGN! There is no other way to have the creatures we witness, or beauty and symmetry and complexity of functionality they possess.

This process of Evolution and Natural Selection (small accumulative changes over generations, advancing life; and self-generating new species of life evolving from simper ones) has no evidence in the natural world. We can only find whole creatures, designed to fit the circumstances in which they exist or have existed, presently or in all strata layers of the soil. There are no evolutionary chains of creatures changing species in the fossil record. In each layer of the soil we find different life, but no evolving chains between them. These biological imperatives are inescapable!

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature … Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”⁽²¹⁾

— Dr. Michael Denton

Life Not Shaped by its Environment; But Designed for It

This is a topic I am going to spend more time on later, but I want to touch on it here and bring it into the discussion. Living creatures spread throughout this world do things that they do not have the self-awareness or intelligence to understand the implications of— in providing critical contributing roles to support the balance of life on this planet. Yet because they instinctively do them, they accomplish a needful service; and contribute to this balance we find in operation in this world. Life does not have the self-awareness or intelligence to build itself. LIFE SEEKS ITS OWN ENDS HERE! Yet in the process, fulfils a needful role to balance the effects of the other life, in recycling the bio-components of our world.

The variety of life here accomplishes this role in being the food source themselves for other life to perpetuate its existence; or their by-products or waste gives needed biological fuel to other life, providing this critical bio-balance necessary for all life to exist, recycle, and function.

If such a balance were not created and self-maintaining, a few dominate species would quickly over consume and stress all other life out of existence; undermining the whole system and causing their own destruction.

Only one species on earth is capable of recognizing and understanding this reality, and acting morally to respect and preserve it. That is human kind.

Something very advanced must have designed and built life to its purpose— to provide this balance; in both its rate of offspring, and its specific impact inherently to provide some critical need, and to solve some problem in the chain towards the sustainability of all life in both the animal and vegetable world.

Therefore, if this high level of intelligence was involved, what would that intelligent life be? What was the reasoning and meaning behind such a creation? If such a highly intelligent creature exists, where do we go to learn about it?

We are going to continue to dig out that truth.

Atheism Comes up Short

Another individual I also came across, while searching for answers to my questions, was Anthony Flew; an author and “Atheist crusader” who had been a leader in the Atheist movement for most of his life. But, which later, completely reversed his position and embraced Theism. Like Dr. Michael Denton and others, he came face to face with facts of reality he could not simply ignore.

In describing his transition from Atheism to Theism, he shares these perceptive conclusions:

“I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” ⁽²²⁾

“I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological [ finding meaning behind existence] and not chemical…

No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.” ⁽²³⁾ —Anthony Flew

Flew was of British nationality, and a university professor of philosophy. During his career he taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, and at York University in Toronto. ⁽²⁴⁾

I was deeply impressed by this metamorphosis, of someone so immersed in one belief system, to be open minded enough to be influenced by a larger truth that emerged later in his life. This took great courage and honest personal introspection against a lifetime of defending a position, and then making a complete 180% turn into the teeth of your perceived enemy. A journey few are willing to take. It is so much easier to remain where you are comfortable, respected and secure. He had no other reason to do this, except to succumb to a sincerity and honest intellectual internal realization which he could no longer ignore. It was a true and honest shift in his foundational principles of belief.

A belief that under the weight of his own intellect and sense of reason, found himself convinced he had been mistaken, and wrong in his earlier assumptions.

He also makes it clear—his change of heart and belief was not a spiritually motivated event. He was finally convinced by the evidence of ongoing scientific discovery into the “richness and inherent intelligence of life”, ⁽²⁵⁾that the only logical conclusion was a maker and creator of life.

Reaching Honest Conclusions

If we are to ever find the truth; we must begin by being honest with ourselves!

We can’t hide from the truth— if we want to know what it really is!

The solar system, and known universe we see is independent of mankind, (as we are certainly not the creators). And as we speculate at how these conditions came to be, we must rely on reason and theory where we do not have hard facts or evidence. But the clear truth is, the science behind our world and solar system precedes the life here and its beginnings. The truth behind the science here precedes us; and was all set-in motion before we existed and began to ask our questions; or to learn about how this all functions.

“Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible… It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say, this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts.” ⁽²⁶⁾

—*G. Salet

What we witness, (both discovered or to be discovered), has been going on for billions of years; as we peer back into the age of the universe.

But remember the “trick of Life” ⁽²⁷⁾ I explained in part 2 of this series. When we attempt to explain and understand the miracle of life, or any other truth we investigate; we are not capable of extending ourselves beyond our current levels of knowledge. It is by the application of study and investigation that our knowledge base grows. Later when ideas or beliefs are reexamined within our growing intellect, more often than not, we see so much more— because of our expanded capacity.

When examining the deep and searching questions of life within this natural growth process, it is likely many of our earlier positions will need to be adjusted. Sometimes abandon, and replaced. THAT IS THE REASON WHY COMING TO UNDERSTAND WHO WE ARE, AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE, AND THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH, IS A PROCESS AND NOT AN EVENT!

And what we learn today, can always be added to— by what we may learn tomorrow, or in the coming days, months, and years. As we are learning truth, all of us will be missing things, because of the limitation of our natural circumstances or personal strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, our knowledge is always incomplete. But it is in this very recognition of our inadequacy that we can be humbled into keeping an open mind and to continue the learning process going forward.

Science Great Conclusion

The growing field of science has been a blessing and help to improve our lives and circumstances, and the quality of our own existence. But to say it has replaced religion, is to ignore the very substance of science. It is true, that within religion is much error, and superstition; but religion also raises questions and provides answers that are sound, and which science supports. Not only has it not been able to replace religion, but it can’t help but provide evidence for it.

Today, those who want to attack religion, in support Atheism refuse to admit to the proof of their own experiments and findings. If seeing is believing, they will not see what is right before their eyes.

The harder they work, and the deeper they dive into their efforts to substantiate their own anti-god claims, they keep finding more and more layers of complexity that they have no reasonable alternative to explain away. So, they overlook the obvious conclusions of their own findings, and twist themselves into paradoxical knots, to offer up substitute theories that do not explain the evidence, or satisfy the truth of the science they themselves have revealed.

Modern Science itself has now raised the very question, where did this complexity come from? And who or what was behind it?

To be Continued . . .

Sources:

1.Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)

2. An Interview with Michael J. Denton – YouTube

3.Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) [ Pg 353–354 emphasis added]. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

4.*Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

5.Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

6. *Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France] Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

7. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

8. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), Pg 77 Source: https://quotepark.com/authors/michael-denton/

9. *Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199. Evolution Handbook 3 (evolutionfacts.com)

10. *At Random, A Television Preview, in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.

11. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

12. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), Pg 77 Source: https://quotepark.com/authors/michael-denton/

13.*Fleishman, Albert, Victoria Institute, Vol. 65, pages 194, 195.

14. *James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

15. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Chapter 1, pg 13

16. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Introduction, pg 9

17. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Chapter 1, pg 13

18. Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis
Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)

19. Book: Man Does Not Stand Alone by A. Cressy Morrison, Copyright Jan 1, 1946, Introduction, pg 9

20. Website: All About Science.Org, Article: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Section: A Theory In Crisis
Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)

21. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358. Defining Evolution 10: Natural Selection – The Creation Club | A Place for Biblical Creationists to Share and Learn

22.Website: Creation.com Review There is a God by Antony Flew – creation.com

23. How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind : Strange Notions

24. Antony Flew – Wikipedia

25. How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind : Strange Notions

26. *G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devani la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

27. Who Am I part II Blog, Heading: The Trick of Life, Mountain Star Network Who Am I? Part II – Mountain Star Network

*The asterisk before a name indicates a scientist who is considered an atheist.

Where Modern Science Brings Us(Who Am I, Part 6)

Who Am I? Part 6, A look into how Evolution has fared under modern scientific advances. The challenges scientists have faced in trying to validate it in the context of DNA and Genetics. Evolution vs Creations standing, in the light of modern discovery.

This is part 6 of a series on Who Am I?

Evolutions Standing in Modern Science Today?

So, with this delve we have made into the scientific theory, when you take its pieces apart, and when you look for empirical evidence that would prove this theory of Evolution, Modern Science cannot provide such evidence that this theory is plausible. In fact, it has so far been impossible to substantiate Evolution as a workable theory. What other conclusion are we left with? There on the other hand, is substantial proof that life is made up of complex intelligent design. Design so complex we are still studying it, and trying to figure out how it could have been created and made to work in the first place, because it is superior to any technology we have ever been able to create. THIS IS WHAT MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVEN EMPIRICALLY!

When trying to discover “who we are” and the origin of life on this planet, it is clear that Modern Science is still investigating, and even concealing its findings, and their meaning. Why? Because it has a theory it wants to give us… one it wants so much to believe in; but it’s a theory that its own scientists can’t prove. Modern Science holds up the mantra, that true science must be empirically proven to be substantiated. Its claim is that Evolution is all about empirical evidence. In fact, this is their main case against Religion; saying it can’t be empirically proved, therefore, it can’t be accepted as fact or truth. Yet their own foundational theory of Evolution, has no empirical evidence! Let’s look more closely.

After the 1960s, Scientists studying the origin of life divided into different camps. With the discovery of DNA and Genetics; out dated thinking now needed to be updated, because the science had grown. Darwinian ideas, popular from the 1800 to 1960, no longer applied. The theory of Evolution now had huge challenges to still remain viable. If life self-started, how did it do it?

How did this theory of Evolution turn on and start up?

Not everyone in the scientific community could agree which part of life’s bio-system would have come together first, as they have not been able to recreate life in a lab, or even to produce a successful experiment to simulate or demonstrate its origin.

On a quest to understand and explain life’s origin, these specific camps of believers formed by gravitating towards their preferred belief, in how this process of life came into being. Out of this grew 3 theories that were being explored.

3 Leading Theories (Scientist at Odds)

Each leading theory has been supported by the most advanced minds of the times in their respective fields of science, and each had reasoned arguments to back up why they believed their theory for this process was the correct one. The leading theories came down to: the Cell, the Metabolism, or the Genetics.⁽¹⁾

“Some were convinced that life began with the formation of primitive versions of today’s biological cells.” A basic cell structure that could hold and isolate the first necessary chemical compounds was paramount before anything else could happen.⁽²⁾ The old Oparin-Haldane hypothesis building on Darwin’s ideas.
“Others thought the key first step was a metabolic system.” Without the ability to consume energy to power life— it can’t be alive to do anything. Metabolism, or the process of consumption must have come first, before anything else could be fueled or constructed and enabled to happen.⁽³⁾
Finally, a third group focused on the importance of genetics and replication as the catalyst for life. This starting point, they believed, might be centered in the construction of RNA (ribonucleic acid) to kickstart the life process. RNA has a less complicated bio-structure to be assembled, and to form— than its more complicated partner DNA. If RNA could be proven to come together naturally, it might begin the process to construct everything else. ⁽⁴⁾At the very least, if they could construct RNA, it would be a strong case to suggest other components could self-construct as well.

As each group has tried to prove their theory and provide the science to back it up for the last 60 years, each of these groups have run into problems. None of them have been able to provide the answer or demonstrate life’s true starting point. While they continue to manipulated all the variables, and have watched and recorded the reactions of cellular components during their experiments—attempting to ignite parts of the system to come together and start up; all have fallen short of producing “the successful experiment, to ignite life”, and provide a workable method, simulation, or process to show how their evolutionary theory is able to provide the solution; even to produce a single workable functioning part of the cellular system.

Irreducible Systems

To make a system go (which requires all its parts to function), it would be difficult to isolate one part as the driving mechanism for all the others. If each provides a critical function that the others don’t; all are required as a needful part of the equation to explain or have existing biological life. This is what has been called an irreducible system. Darwin, himself spoke of such a challenge to proving his theory. If something living requires a basic set of needed parts to be able to exist, and by removing even one of those basic parts you can’t have a living life form; then you cannot start with less. It is irreducible. Therefore, the challenge for a scientist who believes life Evolved—is to find a way to prove how one of these critical parts came to be without the others; and then created the rest. To conduct their experiments (since scientists can’t create any kind of life), they must take exiting biological life and experiment with living organisms.

Marshall, in his article points out that because of the passion with which each group supports its own theories, “scientific meetings on the origin of life have often been fractious affairs.” ⁽⁵⁾With these independent groups religiously dedicated to their own theories; they are somewhat tribalistic.

“All three ideas acquired adherents and have survived to the present day. Scientists have become passionately committed to their pet ideas, sometimes blindly so…and journalists covering the subject are regularly told by a scientist in one camp that the ideas emerging from the other camps are stupid or worse.” ⁽⁶⁾

– Michael Marshall

The scientific society at large today is clearly divided; each division to a point of criticizing and invalidating the work of the others; and not sure what the answer is as to life’s spark.

One thing all of them are united on though; is that there is no God, and that life came from Evolution, even though they have yet to prove the theory. And if you can’t prove a theory, then it remains a theory and is based in a belief system, not empirical scientific evidence.

Self-Evident Truth

In looking over the ongoing investigations into Evolution by the scientific community; and looking what the self-evident discoveries of science (that are empirical) have proven about the function of biological life: with the cell, genetics, and the DNA; I think a credible self-evident truth has been emerging. The only answer that can provide a credible explanation of the truth we see in the structuring and function of that life, is that intelligent life had to have produced it. Creation, and not Evolution is the logical explanation behind the life on this planet.

While the Atheist Leadership who rule Modern Science in academia will never make such an admission, adjustments needed to be made to their theories to accommodate these new scientific truths of the complexity of life. Hence the admission of Papineau and Dodd we discussed earlier:

“…it looks likely that microbial creatures started swarming Earth almost as soon as it formed. Even without consensus on how and where life got going, everyone pretty much now agrees on a basic when: early. And quickly.”⁽⁷⁾

This statement reveals that Modern Science has had to give up one of its cardinal beliefs of Evolution, to now admit that early life on the planet did not evolve over millions of years to produce the first life forms. They now must recognize that a viable complex cell containing DNA was required right from the beginning, to explain the life we find in ancient fossils.

Not only that, but this life was designed to procreate and perpetuate itself within a delicate environment carefully and distinctly designed to support it.

Why can’t this be admitted to in scientific circles? The only logical conclusion that can be reached, is that the discovery of “actual truth” is not the aim of Modern Science; but the support and evangelizing of an anti-God belief in the development and unfolding of the universe. They are accepting of any science or theory that supports a self-constructing universe; but they will ignore any evidence or truth that challenges their Atheism.

Alien Life

A fourth group has emerged that will admit to this, yet they still come up short of calling it God. Some call it aliens from another world; or drifting natural living spores arrived from a distant planet.⁽⁸⁾The trouble with this theory is it just starts the same argument over again on another world. How did that intelligent life come to be— to create the intelligent life that exists there? Religion faces a similar problem with where did God come from?

Creation VS Evolution

We may not know how life was ignited and accomplished originally in any part of the universe; but what we see and understand about life here (from the provable science we do have), clearly demonstrates, that the simplest and most reasonable conclusion that can account for this mind-blowingly detailed and complex biosystem of life on this planet; is that it was engineered and constructed by intelligent life.

Creation—not Evolution, is the only viable explanation.

To be continued . . .

Sources:

1. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

2. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

3. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

4. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

5. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

6. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

7. A new finding raises an old question: Where and when did life begin? By Kat McGowan September 8, 2017 https://www.popsci.com/where-and-when-did-life-begin/

8. Panspermia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Who Am I? Part 5

Who Am I? Part 5, Examining growing Modern Science, its discoveries and their meaning and conclusions. What does the science prove? What do we learn about who we are?

This is part 5 of a series on Who Am I?

The Attempt to Prove Evolution

After Stanley Millers experiment in 1952, demonstrating the ability to create simple chemical compounds of glycine and alanine, other scientists began to find ways to make other simple biological molecules from scratch. This led the scientific community to believe the mystery of life’s origin was very close.⁽¹⁾

But shortly thereafter, with breakthroughs into the discovery of the operations of Genetics, through the late 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s and beyond; and the isolation and mapping of the DNA, the more that scientists discovered and learned about how these biological systems operate and are configured; the more detailed the structure of cells and their functions were discovered to be. Cells where the foundational building blocks of living things.

Michael Marshall points out that the early achievements towards an explanation of “how life came to be”… proved grossly inadequate:

“Suddenly, Oparin and Haldane’s ideas looked naively simple, while Miller’s experiment, which only produced a few of the amino acids used to build proteins, looked amateurish. Far from taking us most of the way to creating life, his seminal study was clearly just the first step on a long road…” ⁽²⁾

Theory in the Face of Facts

In our search of finding the truth, of who we are? We are going to look logically and critically at the theory of Evolution to see if it is a good fit with what science has proven. In this overview we are going to look at the words and work of Modern Scientists, and their advancing theories to see how they fit together with the actual science they have uncovered about life. Theory is what we use when we don’t have the facts. It is our best educated guess at what the facts we do have add up too. It is logic, applied to the facts; and where it appears the facts are leading us. So where is the science that has been proven… leading us?

The Anatomy of Cells

These advances in Modern Science they have discovered and proven over the last 100 years, as facts, reveal how living things are constructed. The earliest life they have found in the fossil record are Microbes (Microscopic one celled life) which have proven to be very complex and of sophisticated design. If you rise to the next level of life, above one celled microbes, to multi-celled organisms; it was discovered that within every living cell is a mini bio-world of technology; a self-functioning lifeform with a brain or command center, with very logically designed intricate connecting systems to support its various working parts. Each system is built and functioning independently of each other; as well as in correlation together. This was a shock and a revelation to science as to how life works. Each cell containing micro bio-machines with certain predictable characteristics, performing specific processes required to build and support itself as a self-functioning life form; and with the blueprints (DNA) to multiply and design and grow; turning itself into and providing a body for a plant or animal species of our world in all its particulars.

In the diagram of a human cell below you can see its many different parts; each part complicated, detailed and fulfilling a critical function. I won’t go into detail about how it all works at this time, but the discovery of the functions and capabilities which a basic cell contains, represented something far beyond what anyone was expecting. Life was not simple at all, and that became a huge dilemma for those who wanted to believe life constructed itself without an intelligent designer.

The Human Cell, HealthoolHuman Cell – Parts, Diagrams, Functions, Types and Atlas – (2021 – Updated)

Michael Marshall, who has laid out the foundational theories and development of Evolution in his article, The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, draws this observation.

“Living cells, it turned out, were not just bags of chemicals: they were intricate little machines. Suddenly, making one from scratch began to look like a much bigger challenge than scientists had anticipated.” ⁽³⁾

In a nut shell: the cell contains biological components, that carry out specific intelligent functions to build and support life.

The Construction Process of Life

Within its brain (the cell’s nucleus where most of our DNA is stored), one of its operations is to consume energy needed for life in the form of sugars and material elements; and with these materials it obtains, it also creates a complete copy of itself from which it will divide. At this division, (in scientific terms) the original parent cell ceases to exist and divides into two new daughter cells at separation. These two new daughter cells continue this process of creation and division to go on to multiply. All of these cells, somehow as independent life forms, also have the sense of belonging to something greater than themselves and are constructed in concert and order, to become the independent building blocks of a lifeform (organism); and become its self-regulating organs, networks, frame and outer shell, appendages and functioning parts; all constructed of billions of these individual and independent intelligent cells. Without these logical and highly advanced internal capabilities of the cell, and containing within its organs the blueprint (code) and manufacturing systems to know how to build and construct each part of a life form, there would be no life; even the earliest life.

But this is just one issue. In the natural world a cell is not capable of self-function, outside a host. The origin and operations of a cell do not start outside of an existing organism, they come into existence because some life form already exists that produces them.

“Organisms cannot simply emerge from inanimate material (“abiogenesis”), cells always come from pre-existing cells.” ^{(4) _}Science Daily

It takes life^_ to get life, as far as we have been able to trace life’s existence. We don’t find stages of cells constructing themselves with partial parts of simpler anatomy, they are what they are, and they need the parts they have, even in the earliest stages of this earth’s existence so life is able to exist. This belief of partial organic life forms is required to support a belief that life somehow constructed itself from inanimate existing space-matter; because it is logical life must have an origin, and needed to be constructed somehow. But in actual existence we don’t find this in the natural world. We only find organized whole creatures or microbial cells fully formed even in the fossil record.

With this knowledge and understanding, it became more and more clear, that earlier theories about how life evolved contained misconceptions and inaccurate assumptions about how life might work. This brought a halt to Evolutions foundational premise, that life came together gradually over billions of years evolving into simple cells and from cells to the first life forms. Now it became clear, even in the earliest life, DNA and Genes within the cell were there and involved in the earliest life forms.

But beyond that, was the realization that just to explain the existence of the cell itself, was now a significant problem.

Explaining and demonstrating how all of this complex engineering could exist, just to have a viable functioning cell, was now the obligation of Modern Science. All of these new requirements were a part of the problem in finding a solution as to how life came to be. That answer now had to take into account the explanation of how all of these processes were created and came about, layer upon layer in the right sequence, involving millions if not billions of coordinated working individual parts inside one basic cell. This task was staggering to contemplate.

To break the problem down into bit sized pieces they have focused on the central building blocks of a cell, the DNA and how it functions to start the building of the other cell systems as a possible starting point. DNA is assisted by RNA, and the RNA absorbs and breaks down sugars, providing it to the DNA, so the DNA can make proteins that are the building materials of constructing the structure of living things. But it seems, even starting here is a problem, because both DNA and RNA are required to support each other and you can’t have the one without the other.

“DNA makes RNA protein, all in this lipid-encapsulated bag of chemicals,” says John Sutherland. “You look at that and it’s just ‘wow, that’s too complicated’. How are we going to find organic chemistry that will make all that in one go?” ⁽⁵⁾

You are seeing a crack here in the scientific claim to Evolution. This is a problem Modern Science has not been able to overcome; and they are still seeking this answer and have been for 60 years. How to solve this problem has divided the field of science into different camps looking for a way to come up with a solution to, “how did life get started”? As you continue to dig deeper, many more cracks manifest themselves.

Modern Science, Trying to Make Since of the Science

Still today, even in the light of this knowledge, (that life began already complex, even at its earliest stages, and they can’t find a way to explain how a single cell is able to exist or function without all its parts; or without a pre-existent host such as a plant or animal to create it, demonstrating that sterile evolution does not have the answers to explain the existence or creation of life), Stanley Miller’s experiment continues to be cited by the scientific community as proof that life came from a pool of chemicals ignited to life.

Other supporting theories have grown out of this, including the volcanic vent theory: where it is speculated life may have first ignited at the bottom of the sea where hydrothermal vents expel extreme-heated mineral enriched water into the ocean.⁽⁶⁾Within and around these vents microbial life thrives very successfully; even in the absence of sunlight. Another theory is that life began in volcanic pools on land where a similar condition is also present,⁽⁷⁾ which has also revealed microbial life living in super-heated water in extreme conditions. Yet again, finding an environment that can sustain a life form, is not proof of how the life form itself came into existence. These are two different issues entirely.

The modern scientific community is committed to finding the answer to these questions on the emergence of life. As the science has grown, the theories have multiplied and expanded far beyond Darwin’s first suggestions, or what Miller’s experiment suggested when it first was conducted. Yet in spite of ongoing experiments over the last 70 years to demonstrate the science to back up the theory, the secret to life still remains elusive.

Michael Marshall points out: “Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch. So far nobody has managed it, but we have come a long way.”⁽⁸⁾

Why has no one managed it? Possibly because they are looking for the answer in the wrong place. All of the building blocks of life certainly exist here on this planet; as do natural laws, which exist in our atmosphere and on the surface of the earth. A combination of naturally occurring substances and natural laws of electricity produced Stanley Miller successful experiment in producing certain basic amino acids in a laboratory; EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LATER PROVEND TO NOT BE OF THE STURCTURE AND TYPE THAT WE FIND IN EXISTING LIFE. But these natural occurring phenomenon on earth do not produce living cells, or solve the problem of explaining or making abiogenesis a reality. Yet Evolution requires abiogenesis as a part of its theory to construct the first life.

In a similar comparison, nature does not produce cell phones or automobiles. It is one thing to find the material matter of which living things are made, or even the earthly materials of which our modern inventions consist. It is another to have the intelligence to take of these materials and turn them into useful or living things. We would not expect to find cell phones or automobiles produced by evolution, we would say they are too complex and require intelligent life to be involved to construct them. That is a major missing ingredient in the idea of evolution; no superior intelligence is behind this theory, merely accidental natural occurring phenomenon. A self-existent universe.

But what is the difference between a cell phone and the human body when it comes to complexity? Which requires the most knowledge and complex science to construct? We can build one, we cannot build the other, we lack both the knowledge and the complexity still to construct life. Modern Science would never suggest that a cell phone or automobile could invent itself, yet they insist complex biological creatures did. Why the contradiction? More on this later.

The DNA

DNA or Deoxyribo-Nucleic Acid is a molecule within a living cell which holds the genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms (living things, plant or animal), and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids in the nucleus (brain of the cell) to enable its function and activities. Alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.⁽⁹⁾

In other words, the capacity to be alive, even for simple one cell lifeforms, requires complex design to be possible.

We previously discussed the challenges that came with the detailed discovery of Genetics and DNA; and the leap scientific theory must take to fill the gap, between the idea that lighting struck a primordial swamp and igniting some kind of life, to the arrival of the complex building blocks of Genetics and DNA within the living cell that construct all forms of life. This process of life, going from dead matter to living is a leap too far, in the scientific facts of cellular progression we currently have. As this story has unfolded in the last few decades, the scientific community realized: life was not a slow process that evolved over billions of years, as first suspected. In fact, as the search to explain life on this planet continues for Modern Science, there are far more questions than answers.

Papineau and Dodd suggest “it looks likely that microbial creatures started swarming Earth almost as soon as it formed. Even without consensus on how and where life got going, everyone pretty much now agrees on a basic when: early. And quickly.”⁽¹⁰⁾

This was a huge admission from those who seek to find facts to support Evolutions claims, needing to concede this point, life began much earlier than the Fathers of Evolution claimed and could not even exist without complexity right from the start.

In Tim Newman’s 2018 article, What is DNA and how does it work; he shares:

“Virtually every cell in your body contains DNA or the genetic code that makes you, you. DNA carries the instructions for the development, growth, reproduction, and functioning of all life.” ⁽¹¹⁾

The cell of a living entity contains sophisticated Genes with Chromosomes, designed to be transferred from the progenitors or parents to the offspring in plants or animals for life to exist; all neatly ordered and rolled up in a complex DNA structure, within the cell. This is at the foundation for any biological organisms to form and be possible.

Tim Newman further explains, “Amazingly, if all of the DNA in the human body was unraveled, it would reach to the sun and back more than 300 times.” ⁽¹²⁾

That is how complex and long these DNA codes are. It begins to make sense why the mystery of life has become so complicated to explain, figuring out how this process could have been guided by accidental forces becomes, well… impossible… really!

In just one component of the system, DNA’s function of making proteins from sugars in a complex strand needed to fuel the human system; Michael Marshall points out:

“But the process of using DNA to make proteins proved to be staggeringly intricate. That was a big problem for anyone trying to explain the origin of life, because it is hard to imagine how something so complex could ever have got started.” ⁽¹³⁾

Inescapable Conclusions

For the Atheist in the context of Modern Science, the goal is to provide an explanation how the life we see before us was accomplished… by unguided, unaided, means.

Science, past and present, has done an incredible job of discovering the truth about existing life and how it functions. Modern Science understands better than ever before what life is… just not how it could have come about by self-constructing. Every experiment and discovery have failed to provide the scientific facts to prove it.

After years of experimentation, and attempting to recreating life in a lab, or demonstrate a successful process on how living cellular components could come together in nature; so far the facts of science have proven this as a scientific impossibility.

They still have to offer Evolution as a theory, because they do not have the science or facts to overcome the obstacles. And since the theory is unproveable, their belief in Evolution has become a Religion (a belief system). Evolution, is the religion of Modern Science. Faith and belief are the only actual explanation for holding this theory as truth, in the absence of scientific fact.

In the end, they are no different than a Theist, who accepts certain beliefs on faith alone in the absence of provable demonstrable facts.

Belief Systems

The Modern Atheist claims their main reason for abandoning and even criticizing and refuting a belief in God, is because Modern Science proves life came about through natural occurring processes we find on earth, and that this is evidence no God exists. In recent times they have come up with their own explanation and term to describe a religious believer as a follower of Vitalism. Vitalism, they say, is an antiquated concept and belief, and should have been abandon a century ago in the light of scientific reality.⁽¹⁴⁾

Yet as you dig down into the theory of Evolution and its many related theories of a self-existent universe, you begin to find it has many unsolved issues and problems in attempting to reconcile itself with the true proven facts of science.

Now we find because of a lack of a provable scientific method, Modern Science believers and followers, themselves, must resort to leaps of faith ^_to maintain their beliefs in their explanation of the origin of life, in their challenge to hold those beliefs together.

Whether it be Evolution or Theology, the origins of “Who we are” must rest itself on a foundation of reason, and logical conclusion, weighing the evidence we personally find credible. The answer to the question of: who we are? in either field of study, stripped of all its outward dressing of officialdom; and boiled down to is foundation premise; and citing the evidence we have available to us (when it comes down to it), rests on the substance of personal belief.

To be continued . . .

_________________________________________

Sources:

1. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

2. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

3. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

4. Science Daily March 25, 2021 A divided cell is a doubled cell: Division and growth of synthetic vesicles — ScienceDaily

5. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

6. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

7. NASA Science; How did life begin and evolve on Earth, and has it evolved elsewhere in the Solar System? https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/big-questions/how-did-life-begin-and-evolve-earth-and-has-it-evolved-elsewhere-solar-system

8. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

9. Wikipedia DNA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

10. A new finding raises an old question: Where and when did life begin? By Kat McGowan September 8, 2017 https://www.popsci.com/where-and-when-did-life-begin/

11. What is DNA and how does it work? Written by Tim Newman on January 11, 2018 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319818

12. What is DNA and how does it work? Written by Tim Newman on January 11, 2018 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319818

13. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

14. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

Who Am I ? Part 3

Who Am I? Part 3, A search for meaning and truth in life. Asking searching questions about our existence. Darwin’s theories of Evolution and Natural Selection, early Modern Science and how it was shaped and progressed.

This is part 3 of a series on Who Am I?

**All Life Began in a Primordial Pool Of Chemicals -Modern Science**

A Process

Why have I taken this circuitous route about discovering one’s self and answering the question, “who am I”? Why not just come right out and say it, this is who you are!

Because the truth of something is multifaceted, it is not one thing; it is usually a sequence of things, and the existence of life on this planet is certainly that. What we have come to learn about, who we are? Is the accumulation of thousands of years of learning.

Science and Religion Mediums of Truth

There is what you might call a simple scientific explanation to this question. There is also a simple theological explanation to this question; but I have frankly struggled with both of them. Both seemed to have unanswered questions and far stretching speculations that appeared to come up short. But I do believe the truth of our existence is found within both! But so is much error!

It has become a process of sifting through ideas to find the truths and separate the error.

Reason; The Truth Guidance Mechanism

We all possess a gift, and a capability that naturally occurs within us. It is the gift of reason. Some call it common sense, or insight. It is all of these. I have found it is a tool with far more importance to us than it would seem at face value. I believe this human capacity of reason is absolutely required to learn and believe anything. It is what we engage when personally deciding to take anything into our belief system. It must pass the muster of our own judgement, and our own sense of reason. This sense and ability to reason can grow and become stronger the more we use it, and the more it becomes informed with truth. This ability is part of the answer that lies behind who we are. We will investigate this more later.

Investigating Who We Are

We are going to look at the foundations of Modern Science and their explanation of life. I am not going to go into great detail on these concepts because that is not necessary here; but to hit the main points so you have a foundation on which to gain perspective and understanding of the modern scientific theory of life’s existence. This is necessary to begin to build an understanding of who you are.

Modern Science

Modern Science suggests: no God was involved in the building of the universe, or the accumulation of space-matter into our earth or the planets of the solar system. All of the universe and the solar system to which we belong was a natural occurring phenomenon and process. According to Modern Science, our earth was formed ⁽¹⁾4.5 billion years ago. After the earth was formed, as it was cooling, ⁽²⁾ water vapor that was present in the atmosphere began condensing and falling to the earth as rain, which created pools where chemicals existing in earths raw matter on her surface came together in certain combinations. Within that pool⁽³⁾lightning struck and ignited those chemical combinations present, turning them into chemical compounds that are the foundation of life. These chemical compounds over time combined into a living cell. This new living cell or cells springing to life began to replicate (as cells in our modern world have been observed to do), which began a cycle that over millions of years of time evolved into the first simple microbial life forms we find fossilized in the oldest most ancient rocks on earth. Those microbial forms later evolved into more complex life, and those life forms also continued to evolve into the life we see today on this planet.

Where Did These Ideas of Modern Science Come From?

They have existed for centuries; but arrived at a new epoch when Charles Darwin, a scientific enthusiast, studied the naturalist philosophies of the time; and making his own observations, was convinced life advanced through small consistent adaptive changes to its environment. He suggested a new idea, the theory of “Natural Selection”.

In his theory, Darwin believed “that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).” ⁽⁴⁾

The Theory of Evolution

Darwin studied the domesticated breeding that was being practiced in his day, to create refined and improved advances in species of cattle, dogs, horses, and other livestock, observing the wide variety of diversity that had come out of such methods and experiments. He concluded that if these breeding techniques could create breeding lines of superior and improved, better, stronger, more successful animals; this same process also demonstrated the advancement of life through genetic breeding. And not only would these laws apply to controlled experiments; this natural genetic force for change could also be applied to the natural world; and explain how life itself evolved. And that the most superior species would by their strength and superior gifts, win out over lessor forms; improving the species. Not only that, but if this process continued over millions of years (with species evolving to improve, change, and even diversify into limitless life forms) that these same genetic forces could result in the propagation of entirely different species.

This theory of Natural Selection; that nature through this bio-organic process would explain the advancement of life on this planet; would effectively dismiss the concept of a God creator, revealing life came about through a logical, incremental, natural process; and not under the hand of a supernatural being.

This theory was presented to the world in 1859, when Charles Darwin published his book, “On the Origin of Species”.

“By the 1870s, the scientific community and a majority of the educated public had accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favored competing explanations which gave only a minor role to natural selection, and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. Darwin’s scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.” ⁽⁵⁾

But this theory of Natural Selection, still did not offer a solution to how the first life came to be. How inanimate dead matter, could spring to life. As a solution to that question, Darwin suggested the following:

”But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes…” this, Darwin suggested, might have been the beginning of the formation of life on this world.⁽⁶⁾

Oparin and Haldane Hypothesis

These ideas were adopted into the naturalist community, which was small at the time, but did not capture large public support. Fifty-three years later in 1924 Aleksandr Oparin (a Russian Scientist) expounded on this idea, “suggesting that the organic compounds (in the natural environment) could have undergone a series of reactions leading to more and more complex molecules if they were exposed to an energy source such as lightning or ultraviolet light. He proposed that the molecules undergoing such changes formed colloid aggregates [naturally forming dual interspersed substance combinations] or ‘coacervates’, in an aqueous [water base] environment”.⁽⁷⁾ That this could be part of the process with which life on this planet formed.

In 1929, the English biologist J. B. S. Haldane (unaware at the time of Oparin’s theories) proposed a similar premise, furthering Darwin’s original hypothesis, which was compatible with Oparin’s theory.

“Haldane outlined how organic chemicals could build up in water, ‘[until] the primitive oceans reached the consistency of hot dilute soup’. This set the stage for ‘the first living or half-living things’ to form…” ⁽⁶⁾ These combinations gathered together perhaps in chemical combinations called coacervates. “At some point a kind of ‘oily film’ was produced that enclosed self-replicating nucleic acids, thereby becoming the first cell.” ⁽⁹⁾

The idea that life formed in a primordial soup of organic chemicals became known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.

This theory began to gain a following, and garner support in the universities up through the 1950’s.

Harold Urey, a Noble Prize winning scientist in 1934, ^{(10 )}“became interested in the chemistry of outer space, [and] particularly what went on when the Solar System was first forming. One day in 1952 he gave a lecture and pointed out that there was probably no oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere when it first formed. This would have offered the ideal conditions for Oparin and Haldane’s primordial soup to form: the fragile chemicals would have been destroyed by contact with oxygen.”

The Stanley Miller Experiment

Stanley Miller, a doctrinal student in the audience later approached Urey with the idea of carrying out an experiment to prove the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis.

Urey at first was skeptical, but assisted Miller in carrying out the experiment.

“The set-up was simple. Miller connected a series of glass flasks and circulated four chemicals that he suspected were present on the early Earth: boiling water, hydrogen gas, ammonia and methane. He subjected the gases to repeated electric shocks, to simulate the lightning strikes that would have been a common occurrence on Earth so long ago.”

“Miller found that ‘the water in the flask became noticeably pink after the first day, and by the end of the week the solution was deep red and turbid’[opaque]. Clearly, a mix of chemicals had formed.”

“When Miller analyzed the mixture he found that it contained two amino acids: glycine and alanine. Amino acids are often described as the building blocks of life. They are used to form the proteins that control most biochemical processes in our bodies. Miller had made two of life’s most important components, from scratch.” ⁽¹¹⁾

The experiment and its results were published in the Science journal in 1953 and became the most famous experiment of evolutionary science to date.

Modern Science was on its way, it believed, to solving the mystery of life.

To be continued. . .

_______________________________________________________________________

Sources and Notes:

1. How Did Life Arise on Earth? By Ker Than September 01, 2016 https://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html; Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.

2.The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began Eventually the Earth cooled enough for water vapor to condense into liquid water, and the first rain fell. Before long Earth had oceans, which were hot and rich in carbon-based chemicals.

3.The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began [T]here was once a small body of water, filled with simple organic compounds and bathed in sunlight. Some of those compounds might combine to form a life-like substance such as a protein, which could then start evolving and becoming more complex.

4. Discover Website: Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution (darwins-theory-of-evolution.com)

5.Charles Darwin: Charles Darwin – Wikipedia

6. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

7. Origin Of Life: Twentieth Century Landmarks, Copyright Chris Gordon-Smith 2003, https://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html.

8. J. B. S. Haldane, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia J. B. S. Haldane – Wikipedia

9. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, By Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

10. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, By Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

11. The Secret of How Life began on the Earth, Article by Michael Marshall, 31 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring:

3 Leading Theories (Scientist at Odds)

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring:

Sharing is caring: