Chapter 66

Anytime you discuss the matter of origins you are forced to make a philosophical assumption of faith. You must decide for yourself what is more rational and logical: naturalism or theism. The truth or error of the judgments within both viewpoints requires faith, and the way in which you relate yourself to the implications of either perspective will ultimately determine your course in life.

Let us discuss some of the philosophical inferences that evolutionists make with regard to the upward progression of life from a pre-biotic soup. When discussing the whole issue of homology (or commonality of form), it is difficult to avoid circular reasoning; and as such, evidence (or lack thereof) forces the observer to make inferences. If we believe the act of inference is the genuine insight it claims to be, it follows that we must consequently use a fair and reasonable faculty of judgment in order to define more particular our purposes prior to the investigation. What I mean is simply this: If you decide in advance that macro-evolution is true, then any appraisal of evidence you investigate will be worked and massaged into that theory.

The idea that mutations are the driving forces of evolution encounters one fatal difficulty: There is no evidence to support it. Almost all mutations are deleterious (meaning they do the living organism absolutely no good). A simple illustration: If you start introducing copying errors and changes in a book of beautiful poetry, you do not eventually end up with a DVD on geography that is dependent on the independent variable of a DVD player needed to display to you its contents (not to mention the obvious fact that you certainly would get no inference by way of evidence on what was driving the change in the first place, if anything). No one can explain why living systems don’t experience catastrophic destruction under random mutations when all common sense (and scientific) evidence says otherwise.

The fossil record is simply mystifying; it does not sustain any kind of Darwinian prediction that can be intelligently derived by a proper use of inferential balance. I’m not just talking about the Cambrian Explosion; I’m talking about everything we see (The Cambrian Explosion refers to the geologic age in the fossil record where all complex living systems suddenly appear). We have never been able to mathematically or theoretically examine the central claims of natural selection by way of genetic algorithms. In other words, the mathematical cumulative improbability of even the slightest peptides bonding to form polypeptides changing upward to amino acids (amino acids are the building blocks of protein, which is the building blocks of life) is so staggering, that one would dismiss the claims of self-organizing, creative-evolution on the simple grounds of this alone.

Let us look at a few cultural influences that are used by atheists to protect and guard their faith. Richard Dawkins, who is somehow accepted as a great intellect, wrote a philosophical book on the use of Darwinism to support “intelligent” atheism called “The God Delusion.” The book is a complete bore, simply written, easily refutable, tells us nothing, and leaves you empty with unrequited questions. Bill Maher, who is also bizarrely accepted as an intellectual, made a movie called “Religulous.” The movie is a highly edited, endless succession of interviews with uneducated, unsophisticated, simple-minded people who have no idea how to defend their faith –all in a desperate and pseudo-comical effort to somehow leave the viewer with the impression that religious people are dumb. You may ask, why all the talk of these men? The simple answer: They are a couple of wind-bags who aggressively attempt to recruit others into their flawed way of thinking and are also well known as the predominant, self-appointed, sovereign priests of the powerful orthodoxy popularly known as the religion of atheism.

When the world changed in 1859 with the publication of Darwin’s famous “On the Origin of Species,” no one could have predicted the level of unholy zealousness in which people would attach themselves to its propagation. But let us look now at Darwinism for what it truly is: A kind of amusing collection of 19th century anecdotes that is unlike anything we see in the natural world or in the serious sciences (like physics) or in the fossil record. Yes, many biologists do collectively agree that this is the basis for the origin of life, BUT here are some points you should consider as well: The theory doesn’t have any philosophically valid substance to it; it’s not supported by the fossil evidence; it’s mathematically preposterous; and the fact that biologists uniformly agree on it could as well be explained by an obstinate Marxist interpretation of their economic interests. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on scholars to conform to prevailing views in an effort to sustain their research funding, but when one rogue philosopher is free to think and say and write as he pleases…

I will discuss in more specific detail my views on why Darwinism is wrong (as a creation myth) soon, so stay tuned (this is just the beginning). You may ask, why all the talk of evolution? The simple answer: Since I believe the best way to recover from life-controlling problems is through faith in God, we need a leveled playing field where faith can once again be logically and intelligently considered; therefore, this is necessary in order to undermine and reject the foundations of atheism and agnosticism in our present day and age. You need solid ground to stand on; therefore, you must fully understand and realize that faith in God is right, healthy, proper, intelligent, and good. Anything less is utter foolishness.