Why is Atheism the “Default” Belief?

If you were to ask an atheist why he's an atheist, very seldom will you hear a positive answer. That is, you will hardly ever hear “evidence” for why atheism is the correct belief. Instead, the person will likely say he's an atheist because he hasn't been convinced that theism is the correct belief. In other words, he's withholding belief in God until he sees the evidence that God exists. Because of this, many atheists will describe atheism as the “default belief” of any thinking person.

At first hearing, this sounds reasonable. In some ways, I hold a similar view. I don't believe in Bigfoot or UFOs, for example, because I've yet to see any convincing proof that they exist. The anecdotal stories, the grainy video footage, and the dubious trace evidence (like footprints or crop circles) seem better explained as hoaxes or misidentification. I'm sure many atheists look at a belief in God in much the same way as I look at a belief in Bigfoot. But is this skeptical attitude necessarily the correct attitude?

Pretend, for a moment, that you're walking through a forest and you happen upon a log cabin. It's crude and has only a dirt floor. It has no electricity, plumbing, or glass windows. It's just basically logs, notched and stacked, with openings cut out for the the door and windows. There's not a stick of furniture inside nor any other sign of anyone having lived in it recently. What questions might you ask yourself? I would think your first thoughts would be, I wonder who built this? Does someone live here? Where is he now?

I'm fairly certain no one would ask, “That's incredible! I wonder how these logs fell into the shape of a cabin?”

You see, logs organized into the shape of a cabin show design. Sections having been cut out to allow light and access show purpose. Design and purpose are the characteristics of created things and created things are the proof of a creator. The cabin obviously had a creator. Withholding judgment about the existence of a builder of the cabin is not the sign of a rational, thinking person. It's the stubborn refusal of an idiot to acknowledge the obvious!

Life is all about design and purpose. Never mind something as advanced as the human brain – even a single DNA molecule is far more complicated than logs stacked in a square. How can anyone look at a stack of logs and know there was a builder yet see something a million times more incredible and stubbornly withhold judgment about its Creator?

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” There are those words again, “design” and “purpose.” He further says, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.” Dawkins clearly sees design and purpose in the creation. Note, too, his use of the term, “this amount of complex design” which suggests it's more than a few examples of design.

What strikes me as most curious about his comment is how he says design cries out for an explanation. What is there to explain? Design and purpose immediately point to a Designer. I don't need any explanation about how some logs in the woods became formed in the shape of a cabin. The only thing that would need explaining is how so much design and purpose could come about without a Creator. But why would someone look for some other cause for design except that he rejects the most obvious cause a priori?

Dawkins has also said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In other words, people might reject the concept of God but, without evolution, how could they explain the obvious design and purpose visible everywhere in the creation? That question would gnaw at the atheist's intellect making it impossible for him to be entirely secure in his disbelief. This seems a tacit admission that God is the best, first explanation behind design and purpose.

It seems to me that skepticism about God is not the most reasonable starting point. Indeed, it's not the default position at all. Skeptics aren't open-minded people willing to be persuaded if they are presented with compelling evidence. Instead, they have committed themselves in advance to the idea there is no God. They can see the evidence for God in the creation; they simply refuse to believe in the Creator!

Exotic Theories Part 2: The Oort Cloud

What do you know about comets? When I was young, I used to think that comets hurtling through space were similar to meteors entering earth's atmosphere; I pictured it as a fiery ball with a long tail of flames. Comets were cool! I know now that comets are made of ice and the long tail we see is actually ice particles being blasted away from the body of the comet as it passes near the sun. Eh, maybe not as cool as a fireball.

The fact that comets lose some of their mass each time they pass near the sun has a bearing on the age-of-the-earth debate. Obviously, if a comet becomes smaller with each orbit of the sun, eventually it must disappear all together. Also, each time a comet comes near the sun, it also risks collision with a planet or the sun itself which would end its life immediately. Simple reason, then, forces us to acknowledge that comets can only exist so long. Their long tails are a visual testimony of their short livedness. Eventually, they will either exhaust all of their matter or crash into a planet. If our solar system were really billions of years old, they should all be gone by now. End of story.

One very famous comet is Halley's comet which passes by our sun once every 75 years. It is consider a “short period,” one who's orbit takes less than 200 years. Since Halley's orbit is only 75 years, in just one million years it would have passed by the sun more than 13K times! No one believes that is possible and I'm not suggesting that's what secular scientists believe. Actually, secular scientists believe the maximum life span of Halley is about 40,000 years. If the universe is less than 10,000 years old, this isn't a problem at all. However, it doesn't comport well with the idea that the solar system is millions or billions of years old. If the solar system is really billions of years old, why are there still so many short period comets left? In order to rescue their theory, secular science must find a source that can replenish comets as they are exhausted. After all, since there still are comets, and we know that most of them can't have been circling the sun for billions of years, these comets had to come from somewhere more recently.

One possible source that had been suggested is the Kuiper belt, a region of space beyond the planets known to have several, small, icy bodies orbiting about 4½ billion miles from our sun. It has been suggested that on occasion, these objects would collide with each other and get knocked out of orbit, fall toward the sun, and become comets. However, the Kuiper belt has a very round and stable orbit. Most people consider its orbit to be too stable to be a source for short period comets.

Overlapping the Kuiper belt is another group of icy bodies known as the “scattered disk.” The objects in this disk have a much more elliptical orbit which could be described as “dynamic.” They consider this to be a far more likely source for short period comets.

Whether or not the Kuiper belt or the scattered disk are viable sources for short period comets could be debated. I will grant this, though: we can observe these regions of space. We've never seen an object ejected from these regions and become a comet but at least we know these regions are there.

The point is moot though because even the secular scientists themselves are not proposing that Halley's comet, or similar comets known as “Halley-family comets” came from either of these sources. They are claiming there is still another source. They've dubbed this 3^rd source, “the Oort cloud.”

According to Wikipedia, “The Oort cloud,... named after Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals believed to surround the Sun at up to 50,000 AU” [bold added]. Note the use of the word, “believed.” As we read through the entire Wiki article, we see a lot of other conditional descriptions; words like “conjecture,” “thought to be,” and “hypothesized” abound. The Wiki article is brimming with “facts” about the Oort cloud – things like it's composition, size, origin, location, etc. It's amazing that we can know so much about something that we've never seen and really aren't sure even exists!

From the second paragraph of the article, we read, “Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud are made, it may be the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System, and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well.” Interesting, huh? It sounds to me like an admission that the existence of the Oort cloud was born solely out of the need for a source of comets. I take that back. They're not implying any such thing. They are admitting it outright. Also from the article, under the heading, “Hypothesis,” we read the following:

In 1932, the Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik postulated that long-period comets originated in an orbiting cloud at the outermost edge of the Solar System. In 1950, the idea was independently revived by Oort as a means to resolve a paradox: over the course of the Solar System's existence, the orbits of comets are unstable; eventually, dynamics dictate that a comet must either collide with the Sun or a planet, or else be ejected from the Solar System by planetary perturbations. Moreover, their volatile composition means that as they repeatedly approach the Sun, radiation gradually boils the volatiles off until the comet splits or develops an insulating crust that prevents further outgassing. Thus, Oort reasoned, a comet could not have formed while in its current orbit, and must have been held in an outer reservoir for almost all of its existence.

You can read it for yourselves. The Oort cloud was hypothesized seemingly for no reason other than the need for a source of comets! It about as scientific as saying comets are made by unicorns. We might not see unicorns making comets but since there are comets they had to come from somewhere, right? So the comets themselves are scientific proof of the existence of unicorns!!

Most people agree that science is founded upon observations. Here, we are talking about a hypothetical source of comets that cannot be observed so their belief is the Oort cloud is no more scientific than my belief in God. The existence of the Oort cloud is simply necessitated by a belief in an old universe. It's akin to a faith belief except they see it as more plausible because it's a “natural” explanation rather than a supernatural one.

There's nothing within the understanding that God created the universe that disqualifies the possibility of an enormous cloud of icy bodies orbiting so far away that we can't see them. But it's precisely because we can't see it that makes the entire thing seem suspect. I'm withholding judgment until we have real evidence. Until we actually find such a thing, the entire Oort cloud seems like nothing more than an exotic theory.

The Ham v. Nye Debate: Millions of Species

The debate of the decade happens while I am on a hiatus from blogging. Go figure. I'm talking about the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate, of course. You can still watch it on YouTube here in case you missed it.

I did watch the debate live online and there was a lot I wanted to say about it but I didn't have the opportunity then. I feared that once I was back online that I the information would no longer seem timely or relevant. However, there's still a lot of buzz about the debate so I'm going to weigh in on a few points. I don't really intend to make this a series. Instead, I'm going to blog as usual but will use material from the debate from time to time as inspiration.

One point raised by Bill Nye was that if there were 14K or so animals on the Ark (7K kinds) then there would need to be an average of 11 new species created every day from then until now to account for the 16 million species that exist today. That sounds like a lot. As a matter of fact, it's only because it sounds like a lot that the argument seems to have weight. When you get right down to it, this is nothing more than an argument of incredulity, where the speaker tries to assert something is untrue on the flimsy grounds that it just sounds incredible. After all, 11 new species per day is only around 4,000 new species per year which is only .025% of 16 million. I don't know if that even seems unreasonable. If we look at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have been warned for years that between 1,000-10,000 species are going extinct every year. The Center for Biological Diversity says there are, “literally dozens going extinct every day.”

Also, I'm not sure exactly where Nye got his “16 million species” number. Does he mean 16 million is an estimate of the number believed to exist or that 16 million have been identified? I've read varying estimates but the number of identified, extant species of creatures is closer to 1.5-1.9 million. Of course, there are more species that are certain to exist but just haven't been discovered. How many more there might be is somewhat subjective.

A key point in the evolutionary theory is that life has been evolving for billions of years. Over that vast time, countless generations of creatures would have evolved from species to species. Each transitional form technically would be a different species. Darwin expected the geological column to be full of these intermittent species but the innumerable forms he predicted are curiously absent from the fossil record. The lack of abundant, transitional fossils doesn't discourage evolutionists, though. They still believe they existed but simply weren't preserved as fossils. Because of their faith in their theory, evolutionists estimate an absurdly high number of species to have existed. An interesting article explaining evolutionary math can be found on Answers in Genesis. Extreme guesses by evolutionists are upwards of 150 million species – even though only about 250,000 extinct species have been identified in the fossils.

Nye's “16 million” figure is about 10 times the actual number of identified, extant species. If the actual number were less, then of course the number of new species required each day to account for that figure would be much less as well. 400 new species each year (only 1-2 per day) would total 1.6 million new species in only 4,000 years. There are probably more than 1.6 million species but, hopefully, you can see my point. Assuming a more conservative number of species, even a modest speciation rate could have reached that number in the time since the Flood.

But what if the higher number is the estimate is correct? What if there truly are 16 million or even 30 million as some scientists estimate? Here is the key flaw in Nye's point – a flaw I wish Ham would have pounced on immediately: The overwhelming majority of identified species are insects, bacteria, fungi, and plants. Noah did not have to accommodate any of these species (though many of them probably made it on board the Ark, either as food or carried by animals). The actual number of vertebrate species is closer to 80,000 but even ½ of these are marine animals. There are only about 40K species of terrestrial, vertebrate animals. That's a lot smaller than the “16 million species” straw man that Nye presented.

Now, a species is a little more narrow than a “kind.” There are currently 32 species of cats but Noah only had 2 cats on the Ark. There are 8 species of bear but Noah only had 2 bears on the Ark. You get the idea. We're not exactly sure how many kinds Noah had on the Ark, but probably less than 6,000 animals needed to be on the Ark to account for the 40K terrestrial, vertebrate species estimated to exist today. That's only around 9 new species per year for 4,000 years. Suddenly, it's not unreasonable at all.

In my opinion, Bill Nye failed miserably in this debate. One of his key points, a point that has been touted by some as one of his hardest hitting, is a complete bust. Seven thousand kinds did not have to become 16 million species. Bill Nye either doesn't understand the creation argument or has deliberately misrepresented it.

A Time Dilemma for Naturalists

I've been reading a little about time, lately. Time is an interesting phenomenon and even though we experience it all our lives, there's still a lot about it that we don't know or understand. Of course, there are many things we have discovered about time. For example, most of mainstream science sees time as a sort of “fourth dimension”. That is, any object in our universe occupies height, depth, and width, but it also must occupy time – the fourth dimension – in order to exist.

When some people think of the Big Bang, they picture something like all of the matter in the universe pressed together into a single point suspended in space somewhere for countless eons – then BANG, it exploded and all the matter became the stars and planets. That's a false impression since, according to the theory, even space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. What's more, neither did time exist prior to the Big Bang! It's a misnomer to even say “prior” in regards to the Big Bang; that would be like saying something could be “north” of the North Pole.

Here's a wrinkle I see in the Big Bang: It's one thing to say that all matter and space once existed in a single, infinitesimally small point.  It's quite another thing to say that time did not exist before the Big Bang.  If time is truly a fourth dimension in our universe (so nothing could exist outside of time), and if time began at the Big Bang, then NOTHING in our universe could have existed before the Big Bang.  The Big Bang is not simply when a singularity of preexisting matter began to expand. The Big Bang would mark that moment when everything literally poofed into existence. There was nothing, then there was everything. It's poofism.

Some people are more than a little squeamish about the idea that everything literally poofed into existence and so they cling to an equally unscientific idea; namely, that matter is infinitely old. This might rebut the incredible notion of “poofery” but an infinitely old universe carries its own, philosophical difficulties.

There are a few people who think of infinity like it's just a very large number so when they think of an “infinitely” old universe, they simply stretch the billions of years into a number larger than they can imagine. That's completely wrong. If someone began counting, he would never “eventually” reach infinity. He could count forevermore and he would simply reach bigger and bigger numbers. He'll never get “half way” to infinity. In fact, no point in infinity is ever obtainable. No matter how long he counts, he'll not even have begun to take a step toward infinity. You can't count an infinite set of numbers, you can't travel across an infinite amount of space, and you can't cross an infinite amount of time. Get it? It's important that this point be understood because I'm going somewhere with it.

Those people who believe matter is infinitely old have to believe that the Big Bang occurred “after” an infinite history. In other words, they have to believe the Big Bang happened at some point after an eternity had already passed! Logically speaking, that's absurd. It's even more absurd than believing in poofery. No matter how much time has passed, there hasn't been enough time for us to have reached this point if the universe is infinitely old!

I was looking for some quotes to use in this post and it seems I'm not the first person to notice this dilemma. Physicist and blogger, Dr. Dave Goldberg, made this comment in a post titled, What Happened Before the Big Bang:

… [W]e absolutely don't know what happened before the Big Bang. Regardless, logic dictates that we're left with one of two possibilities:

• The universe had some sort of beginning, in which case we're left with the very unsettling problem of what caused the universe in the first place.
• The universe has been around forever, in which case there's literally an infinite amount of history, both before and after us.

Wow! My thoughts exactly. Once I read his article, I feared people might suspect me of plagiarism. He even uses my “north of the North Pole” analogy (it's not my analogy, of course, but one that has been used many times before). Hopefully my readers know me better than to suspect me of plagiarism.

I'm sure the absurdities of their theory weigh heavily on the minds on many scientists. A good theory should explain all the facts but all natural theories about the origin of our universe leave way too many questions unanswered to satisfy the curious mind. There are so many facts still unexplained that no natural explanation of the ultimate origin of matter is deserving of the title, “theory.” Dr. Goldberg explores some very fanciful solutions. Each one is very technical sounding but none of them amount to anything more than story-telling.

Dr. Goldberg makes no effort to defend the second option. Perhaps he sees impossibility of an infinite past. What strikes me most about his quote is his use of the word, “unsettling.” The first option is only “unsettling” if you reject the very reasonable conclusion that the universe has a supernatural Creator: One who is, Himself, eternal and so is able to create a “beginning” at any moment He desires. One who is also able to create ex nihilo (out of nothing).

There is such a Creator. We call Him, Lord!

Morals are Silly!

Morals are silly! That's not my opinion, it's the title of a YouTube video posted by a girl calling herself “healthyaddict.” Healthyaddict is an atheist who posts videos where she usually bashes Christians and occasionally defends atheism. In this video, she's responding to another video by a person posting as “Jesusfreek777” and she attempts to explain where morals come from. As usual, I'm going to recommend you view the video before I begin discussing it. It's only 3:12 long. Go ahead. I'll wait. //RKBentley taps his foot patiently//

I didn't choose this video because healthyaddict is the most articulate defender of atheism. Frankly, I've heard other, more articulate atheists make these same points. I picked this video because healthyaddict is very brief and I believe she is more representative of the casual way people usually make this argument. By the way, I spend about as much time looking at material critical of Christians as I do examining material defending Christians. When I talk about the unbelievers' arguments, I want to fairly represent their views and not build a straw man of their position. In this case, you can hear healthyaddict's position in her own words. I can't be accused of misrepresenting her.

Are we all agreed? Then let's move on.

She opens her video with the comment that “morals are silly” but she never really addresses what she means by that. It's very strange. From there, she changes direction and begins explaining her theory on the origin of morals. It's to this point that I'm going to respond.

Healthyaddict says that morals come from natural selection. That's not a big surprise because that's all that atheists or evolutionists ever have as an explanation. She's a little vague, though, in that she doesn't explain how this mechanism works. Is she saying that morality is a conscious act where we choose behavior that offers the greatest survival advantage or is morality an evolved trait where we instinctively act in ways that offer the greatest chance for survival? Either way, I will show you why she's wrong.

For her first example, she says that if we go around killing people “then the species would die off.” I guess she's saying that if we killed people carte blanche, then eventually we'd kill everyone. That's a little overreaching, don't you think? Again, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth but I'm going to try to help her out. What she might be trying to say is that if we go around killing people, we are more likely to be killed in revenge. Therefore, if we act peaceably toward our neighbors, we're more likely to be left alone by them and, so, are more likely to live longer, have more kids, and pass along the trait of being peaceable.

This sounds plausible at first but it fails under scrutiny. First, it's well known that animals often fight and kill each other – even members of the same species. Sometimes, they fight for reproductive rights where the victorious male is allowed to mate and the defeated male is dead. This actually strengthens the species as a whole by removing the weaker males from the gene pool. If survival of the fittest is the goal, why would it necessarily be morally wrong for humans to kill each other if it were for something like the love of a woman?

Furthermore, under the “don't kill and you won't be killed” theory, would imperialism be objectively immoral? In the US, under our Manifest Destiny mission, we militantly displaced whole nations of American Indians, killing many of them and forcing many more onto reservations. Since this allowed the invading, white men to prosper, it must be moral by healthyaddict's standard.

Healthyaddict also attempts to tackle the dilemma of altruism. Why do humans do things that are a cost to them and a benefit to others? It doesn't make any sense according to evolution where everything is measured only by its survival benefit. Healthyaddict suggests altruism is a sort of reverse to the “don't kill and you won't be killed” principle; altruism is a “do this and they'll do it back to you” strategy. She gives the example of chimps picking bugs off other chimps. They do it in the hope that later, some chimp will pick bugs off them. I think healthyaddict needs to look up the definition of altruism. If you are expecting something in return, then it isn't altruism by definition. When people give money to starving children in third world countries, they never expect the children to someday repay them. Neither does the giver imagine that someday he might find himself in a third world country and will need some, middle class Westerner to give him food.

About 2 minutes into the video, healthyaddict undoes her entire point. She says, “I do think some things are very core when it comes to altruism, not killing each other generally, not raping each other. I think that's kind of like a universal standard because of natural selection.” You can see that the idea of morality by natural selection is so vague as to be meaningless. It's far more subjective than objective. No behavior could really be called immoral if an argument could be made that it offers some survival value. Yet she uses words like “core” and “universal standard” when it comes to the immorality of things like murder or rape. Is there a “core,” “universal standard” of morality or isn't there?

Immediately after stating that some things are universally wrong, healthyaddict points out that some attitudes of morality change over time. She uses the example of homosexuality. Now, homosexuality does not convey any survival benefit. Evolution hinges on reproduction and attraction to the same sex guarantees there can be no offspring. If perpetuation of the species is the objective, then homosexuality should never be viewed as moral. So if attitudes toward the morality of homosexuality have changed, something other than natural selection must be the standard by which it is judged. I would ask healthyaddict, what is that standard? What makes murder and rape always wrong and homosexuality sometimes wrong?

Healthyaddict highlights the futility of the atheist's position. Atheists strive mightily to demonstrate that there is no transcendent, absolute standard of morality. They know to acknowledge the existence of immutable morality strongly suggests there must be a transcendent Judge of right and wrong. So they equivocate and change the meaning of morally “right” to mean “what is expedient.” Yet when it comes to things like rape and murder, atheists immediately label them as absolutely immoral.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

Whenever creationists asks about the origin of life, evolutionists usually respond by saying, “that's not part of evolution.” I've always thought it was rather convenient of them to propose a theory where all life has descended from a common ancestor yet excuse themselves from explaining origin of the common ancestor but never mind that now. Everyone knows what's really going on: evolutionists secretly know that the origin of life is a legitimate question for which they have no answer. So they dodge the question with, “that's not part of the theory,” in hopes of buying enough time to come up with a plausible natural explanation which they will make a part of their theory.

LiveScience is an online, science magazine that regularly posts “countdown” lists, similar to David Letterman's Top 10 lists. One list they have is the top 7 theories on the origin of life (I guess they couldn't come up with 10). Each theory received a short description which you can read for yourself but here is an even briefer summary:

Electric Spark: Inspired by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, this theory suggests that lightning interacting with methane gas in the earth's atmosphere created amino acids.

Community Clay: This is the idea that mineral crystals in clay helped organize the first living cells.

Deep-Sea Vents: Some people believe life began in the hydrogen-rich environment of submarine, hydrothermal vents.

Chilly Start: Instead of super-hot, hydrothermal vents, some believe life began inside hundreds of feet of ice that supposedly covered the early oceans.

RNA World: Before DNA, some speculate that life began with RNA. Of course, they don't have a conclusive theory on the origin of RNA either.

Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Panspermia: This is the idea that life did not begin on earth at all but was brought here from space via comets or meteors. Some extremists who hold this view believe life was intentionally planted here by intelligent aliens but LiveScience didn't mention them in their description of panspermia.

I know these are meant to be thumbnail sketches of the various theories but I believe they say a lot about scientists' ideas about the origin of life.

First off, I noticed the casual use of the word “theory.” Some creationists have criticized evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” This usually brings howls of ridicule from evolutionist explaining how a “theory” is more than just a “guess”; It's supposed to be a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Here, though, they just mean “guess,” don't they? “Theories” are only well-substantiated when creationists suggest that evolution is just a guess. When evolutionists use the word, “guesses” are fine. The correct title of the countdown should be “7 Guesses About the Origin of Life.”

Some of these guesses, though, don't even address the origin of life.  Panspermia, for example, merely pushes the problem further back and onto another world.  And the idea that life began as RNA instead of DNA doesn't explain the origin of RNA.

Did you also notice the huge range covered by the various guesses? Maybe life began in hot vents or maybe it was in ice. Maybe it formed in the sea or maybe in the clay. Maybe life didn't even begin on earth. Some of these competing theories... I mean "guesses"... aren't even close to each other but are mutually exclusive. It's not like scientists have narrowed it down to a range of ideas – they're wild guesses. This isn't science; it's story telling.

This brings me to my final point. It's painfully obvious that scientists truly have no idea about the origin of life. Yet, if they have no idea, then how can they credibly claim that God didn't create life? Do they really mean to say, “I don't know how life began but I KNOW God didn't create it!”? Yes, they really do mean to say that. Even though they have absolutely no idea how life began, they refuse to consider the possibility that God created life. It's disqualified in advance because of their tenet of methodological naturalism. I've written before how there is no scientific reason to reject a supernatural explanation. It's merely their bias.

Some evolutionists would rather continue in ignorance rather than consider a plausible, supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Still others would rather believe we are martians, planted here by aliens rather than believe we are created by God. It's their presupposed naturalism which blinds them to how silly they're being.

Killing Weeds, Killing People – Same Thing?!

A Few weeks ago, BioEdge published an incredible article discussing the ethics of organ harvesting. In the article, two bioethicists made the astonishing claim that “killing by itself is not morally wrong.” They tried to justify their position with the following reasoning:

[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.

Do I really need to comment? Their flawed reasoning is plain for all to see. Well, maybe it's not so plain. Rather than soundly condemning the claims of these so called, “bioethicists,” the author of this article, Michael Cook, actually seems to defend them. He writes:

This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

That last line is a hoot! “Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm”? In what universe does killing a person do them no harm? I suggest that there is no interest in bringing a greater precision to the term “killing” but rather this is an attempt to blur the meaning.

What would prevent Mr. Cook from immediately denouncing these absurd ideas? I'll tell you. If scientists practice a secular brand of science, one where there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then moral decisions are driven by what is expedient. He can see the point the bioethicists are trying to make: namely, we have people who are vegetables and we have people who need organ transplants. To him, this is a worthwhile discussion.

This highlights the dangers of moral relativism.

In the Christian worldview, we know that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). There is value in human life. We are not like the animals and we are certainly not like the plants. We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and even the most pathetic human is infinitely more valuable than a weed. Questions about the “quality of life” are relative and subjective and certainly do not supersede the fundamental “right to life” which has been endowed upon us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution. Truth is absolute and the Bible specifically condemns the taking of innocent human life.

These bioethicists have made several flawed assumption in reaching their conclusion. Foremost is the overt assumption that there is no qualitative difference between human and plant life (I suppose they also treat animal life with equal regard). They make no attempt to defend this idea but seem to rely on a fundamental understanding that a clinical definition of “life” applies equally to all “living” things. “Life is life,” if you will. If we start with that assumption, then the bioethicists are correct. If all things are equally alive, then there really is no difference between a human and a plant.

Once we cross that bridge and equate humans and plants, then we can rationalize the taking of certain lives for the sake of others. It's the same reason we pluck weeds so other plants can grow. If a person is only alive in a persistent, vegetative state, then why not harvest his organs to help someone who can recover and contribute to society? It's a sort of evolution – a societal “survival of the fittest.” The lion eats the zebra in order to survive. Is that “wrong”? It's nature's way for the strong to exploit the weak and if we can “weed out” the unfit members of our society to benefit the more fit, on what grounds can anyone say it's wrong?

Of course, why stop with the persistent vegetative? What about the permanently disabled? People who are victims of something like downs syndrome will always be dependent on others and thus will always be a drain on the resources of those who help them. Why not harvest their organs for the benefit of people who can become productive if they could only receive transplants? You can see this is a slippery slope where might makes right. Even so, the problem remains – on what grounds can we say it's “wrong”? If it's only wrong because the majority says it's wrong, then eugenics could prevail if its proponents can only persuade enough people to their view. Then suddenly what we believe is “wrong” now will become “right.”

As I've said many times before, atheists are not rational people. More specifically, anyone who rejects the absolute truth of the Bible is irrational. Even though they have no objective standard by which they can judge right and wrong, they still act like such a standard exists. These same people who claim that plant life is the same as human life will devote themselves to taking care of their families and also cut their grass. They will tell their children it's “wrong” to lie even though their own worldview is silent on the subject. They call Christians “evil” and say creationists are lying yet there is no scientific standard which identifies anything as “evil” or makes lying “wrong.” In instance after instance, these people conduct their lives in direct contradiction to their own worldview.

Fortunately, Christians are not confused and can see the difference between humans and weeds.

They're Looking in the Wrong Place

I know I'm dating myself but here's a joke you may not have heard in a while:

A man was crawling around looking for something. Another man walked up and asked, “What are you looking for?”

The man answered, “I dropped a dollar. Would you help me find it?”

“Sure. Where were standing when you dropped it?”

“Over there by those bushes.”

“Then why are you looking here?”

“Because the light is better here.”

I shouldn't have to explain what makes the joke funny: it's ridiculous to search in the wrong place simply because the light it better. No rationally thinking person would do that, right? You'd be surprised. Evolutionists do it every day!

I've cited this quote before (here) but let me remind my readers of it:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002 [emphasis added].

Every time I hear an evolutionist tell me there is no evidence for creation, I remind myself of this quote. When evolutionary scientists study the issue of origins, they do so with starting assumption that everything must have a natural explanation. They admit as much. The reason they do this (or at least the reason they offer) is because only natural processes can be tested. Supernatural events (i.e. miracles) are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Yet does that premise alone mean that miracles do not occur? Of course it does not. It's a not so subtle attempt to define creation away.

I see a striking similarity between the attitude of evolutionists and the man looking for his dollar. They both claim to be earnest looking for something but they both search in vain for the sake of convenience: the man in the joke searches in the light for something that was lost in the shadows and the evolutionists search only in the natural realm for something that was supernatural. It's funny when you think about it. If the miraculous explanation for the origin of the universe happens to be the correct one, it's no wonder evolutionists can't find it. They're looking in the wrong place!!

The Funny Thing about Facts

Contrary to the popular expression, facts don’t speak for themselves. Facts must be interpreted. Our conclusions about the facts also turn on what starting assumptions we use when interpreting the facts.

It’s been often said that the “evidence” supports evolution and there is no “evidence” for creation. The fact of the matter is that both theories have the same evidence. We all live in the same world and so have the same fossils, the same rocks, the same stars, the same molecules, and the same everything else. The evidence doesn’t necessarily support either theory; rather, either theory is an attempt to explain the evidence.

Consider a geological feature like the Grand Canyon. How was the canyon formed? According to secular theories, the canyon layers were laid down over a period of some two billion years and the canyon was later carved out by the Colorado River and other tributaries. Creationists believe that most of the layers in the Grand Canyon were laid down rapidly and the canyon carved out rapidly and catastrophically during the events surrounding the Noachian Flood. Both theories are using the same evidence yet each tries to explain the evidence in a different way.

Now, good theories should be predictive. If the creationist theory concerning the creation of the canyon is true, we might expect to find signs of rapid depositing of sedimentary layers. Do we find any “evidence” consistent with that prediction? Yes! The photo to the right shows strata that is tightly bent or folded. Such a find is inconsistent with long age interpretations because solid rock is not easily bent without breaking or cracking. However, soft layers of mud can be bent by rapid upheaval without breaking or cracking. So the creationist theory better explains this evidence than the long age theory.

Speaking of predictions, Darwin made some predictions he hoped would validate his own theory. Read his own words (from 2 different chapters of The Origin of Species):

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?...

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Darwin predicted that, if his theory were true, that the geological record would be overflowing with fossils of “intermediate varieties” of species. During his lifetime, paleontology was a blossoming discipline and he was confident that future finds would confirm his prediction. Yet 150 years later, only a handful of debatable transitional fossils have been found – not the countless numbers he expected.

So, is this lack of “evidence” damaging to Darwin’s theory? Not in the least. The late, Stephen Jay Gould, a champion of evolutionary theory, was frank about the nonexistence of gradualism in the fossil record. In a 1972 paper, along with Niles Eldredge, Gould, proposed an evolutionary theory known as punctuated equilibrium. According to Gould, evolution occurs first in a very small group of individual organisms isolated from the larger, parental population. The smaller group rapidly evolves while the larger group remains static. Since the large group leaves the most fossils, and the smaller group very few, it easily explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. How convenient that Gould would suggest a way to explain the LACK of evidence for his theory.

Since any theory is an attempt to explain the evidence, it is no wonder then that the evidence will seem to support the theory. Evolutionists may be wrong but I don’t think they are idiots so of course the evidence is consistent with their explanation. But even a theory that seems to explain the evidence very well can still be wrong. Fellow creationist, Todd Wood, said on his blog:

“In the history of science, there are often times when interpretation of data are uncertain, and a person could justifiably claim that there was evidence for two mutually exclusive theories. The obvious example would be Copernican vs. Ptolemaic astronomy. Copernicus' trick of switching the sun and earth's location helped explain some observations (like why Mercury and Venus were always observed very close to the sun), but his retaining circular orbits and epicycles did not make his model simpler or more accurate than the Ptolemaic. Furthermore, the Ptolemaic model had on its side the everyday observation of the sun's motion across the sky. Galileo did little to resolve this dispute, and Kepler's proposal of elliptical orbits was not universally accepted. It was not until Newton that the Copernican system (actually a heavily modified version of the Copernican system) really triumphed.

Today, we have no doubt that the earth rotates and moves around the sun, but would it then be fair to say that there's "no evidence for the Ptolemaic system?"”

The Ptolemaic Model endured from the Greeks until Galileo. It seemed to explain the “evidence” very well but it was very wrong notwithstanding. It could still be said that there is “evidence” for the Ptolemaic system, but the heliocentric model is a better explanation of the evidence.

So we have competing theories about things like the origin of the universe, the world, and of humans. Both models have the same evidence available to support their theories. The question falls to us – which is the better explanation of the two? More directly, which one do we believe is the correct explanation?

I think everyone knows where I stand.

Looking into the Past

There’s one thing that bothers me about evolution. OK, there are many things that bother me about evolution but now I’m thinking of one in particular. Evolutionists often tout that we “observe evolution in action.” And since they equivocate so on the definition of evolution, we sometimes do see “evolution” occurring (that is, we see evolution occurring by definition). However, if we limit “evolution” to mean the theory that all present biodiversity on earth has descended (via descent with modification) from a single common ancestor, then we haven’t “observed” anything of the sort.

The funny thing about science is that it’s supposed to be about things that are observable, testable, and repeatable. When we talk about unique events of the past, such as the supposed “Big Bang,” the events are neither observable nor repeatable. As a matter of fact, we can’t observe the past at all – we can only observe the present.

When you look at a fossil, you are looking at it now. You are not looking at 65 million years ago. The fossil is here in the present and any tests or experiments we conduct on it are being conducted in the present. We can repeat the experiments, we cannot repeat the supposed 65 million years.

Some things about the fossil are objective – like how much it weighs. Other things are subjective - like if it’s really a bone or simply an ordinary rock that resembles a bone. Now, you can make claims about the supposed fossil/rock and let other scientists review your claims. If you say, “this is a tooth from a T-Rex,” other scientists can compare your alleged tooth to other alleged teeth that were found in more complete, alleged skulls of what has been identified as other t-rex fossils. Maybe they’ll agree or maybe not. But whatever “science” is being conducted is being conducted here and now. We are not observing the past. We’re making observations in the present and drawing conclusions about the past.

Furthermore, if an evolutionist claimed, “this tooth is 65 million years old,” there is no way to go back in time 65 million years and look to see if this same alleged tooth was truly in a dino’s head at that time. The claim is ultimately beyond verification. The best one can hope for is validation by other scientists who might agree with the conclusion.

Now, scientists have theories about things in the past. They have theories about things like the origin of the universe and abiogenesis. OK, so how do we test their theory of abiogenesis? We could try to create life in a lab – but even if we were successful we can’t know for certain that’s how it happened. Ultimately, their theory is beyond testing. Scientific theories can never be proven true anyway – they can only be proven false. So how do I “falsify” abiogenesis? How would I falsify a theory on something like the origin of gravity? How do I falsify a theory about the origin of energy? Many evolutionists I know haven’t even thought about such things as the origin of gravity. I guess they believe it just always was.

When they do consider a theory for the origin of anything they look for natural explanations because that is what they consider “scientific.” Why? There is no objective reason to do so. Some say it’s because only the natural explanations are testable but this reason fails because no theory on the origin of something like gravity is testable. The origin of gravity was a unique event of the past that cannot be repeated or observed. And, as I’ve sometimes said, if scientists don’t know how gravity began, how can they exclude the possibility that God created it? Certainly when you start with the axiom that everything must have a natural explanation, you will always arrive at a natural explanation.

Frankly, I can't understand their reasoning. If we don't know how something happened, how can anyone so firmly believe it wasn't a miracle? The obvious answer is that their belief system is such that only what is natural is real. Hence, they practice a dogmatic belief about things you cannot observe - a religion if you will. In this sense, evolution is as religious as creation. Alternatively, creation is at least as scientific as evolution.

It’s really that simple. When we firmly commit ourselves to beliefs that are ultimately unverifiable, we are exercising a sort of faith. I have decided that the Genesis account of creation is truly how we got here even though I can’t prove it. Others can cite all the “evidence” they have that we evolved and be firmly convinced that they are correct but I know they really can’t prove their position either. If they were truly honest, they would admit the same.

Now just because something happened in the past, it does not mean we cannot judge for ourselves if we believe the event is true or not. It merely means we are thwarted in our ability to observe, test, and repeat the supposed event. Of course, some theories about past events are more obvious than others. If I saw skid marks leading off the highway, through a field, leading to a mangled car wrapped around a tree, I would conclude that the car skidded off the road and hit the tree. I would believe that even though I didn’t see it happen. However, if an eyewitness to the event gave me a different explanation than the obvious one and the details at the scene can be interpreted in a way that supports the eyewitness's account, I might change my mind.

Now, to the creation of man (and everything else): We are here so obviously we had to come from somewhere (unless one claims that humans have always existed). Regardless of the precise process, there are at least two theories about how we got here: 1) We were created by some type of Designer or 2) we arrived via natural processes. As far as I see it, those are really my only options. So, I will consider both sides and decide which I believe is the truth.

The most reliable information we have of the past is what has been written down and preserved by the people who observed it. We cannot go back and observe the past. We can only find the writings and artifacts of those ancient people and study them in the present. In the case of creation, we do have an impeachable Witness to the event. He is infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. He also has revealed to us how He created the world. So I have His word or I have the word of fallible men with finite knowledge and limited understanding who are speculating about events they did not witness.

Hmmm, I think I’ll take His word.

The Obvious Answer

I was online the other day and someone said the oddest thing: He asked why people thought the joke, “Why did the chicken cross the road?,” was funny. He said it wasn’t funny to him when he heard it at the age of four and he still doesn’t think it’s funny now. He just didn’t get it.

To me it seems obvious. What makes it funny is that people search for some deep meaning and overlook the obvious one. It’s like the similar joke: Q. Why do firemen wear red suspenders? A. To keep their pants up. My daughter asked me a modern version but with the same theme: Q. What did the farmer say when he lost his tractor? A. Where’s my tractor? It's just funny when people can't answer such an obvious question.

It occurred to me that this is often the case for evolutionists. They overlook an obvious answer in search for a natural (yet far more unlikely) explanation. Darwin, for example, said in his book:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Question: how was something as complex as the eye created? One obvious theory is that God created it. Ah, but Darwin didn’t get it. He went on to say:

“Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

Wow. That’s the long way around a simple question. I wonder how he might have answered the chicken crossing the road question.

Consider also these quotes:

Aldous Huxley said, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.”

Might I paraphrase? “Things really look like they’ve been designed but I know they aren’t!”

But perhaps the most brazen denier is Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule). In his book, What Mad Pursuit, Crick wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved.”

That’s a hoot. Biologists see design everywhere. The evidence for design is so overwhelming that Crick advises they should constantly remind themselves that things are evolved – not designed!

Question: Why does everything appear to be designed?
Answer: Because it was designed!

Watching these evolutionists groping around for answers while overlooking the most obvious one always makes me chuckle. It’s the funniest thing since, “Why did the chicken cross the road?”!

Today is Earth Day

Today is “Earth Day.” According to Wikipedia, “Earth Day… is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment.” That sounds well and good and I’m all for appreciating the Earth’s environment. But there’s a fine line between appreciation and adoration and I fear too many people blur the distinction. As Christians, we must be clear about what our role is in this world. When God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, He gave them a few, simple instructions.

First, we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). We’re different than the animals. When God made Adam, He gave him the task of naming the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). Adam saw that he wasn’t like the beasts or the birds; he was in the image of God. When God made Eve, Adam at last saw someone like himself. Upon seeing Eve he exclaimed, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). But some celebrants of earth day don’t draw the line between humans and animals. In fact, they state the opposite! Read how the Oakland Zoo is celebrating Earth Day:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

So when kids go to the Oakland Zoo on Earth Day, they’re told they’re just another knot in the web of life. Lizard, bird, monkey, and man – it’s all the same.

Another commandment God gave to Adam and Eve is, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28, NASB). He gave this same command to Noah and his family after they left the Ark (Genesis 9:1). Procreation is a blessed event that God encourages within marriage. However, one of the driving motives behind the original celebration of Earth Day was “zero population growth.” US Senator, Gaylord Nelson, an early leader in the Earth Day movement, made the following quote:

"The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become ... We have to address the population issue. The United Kingdom, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'"

We can see that Senator Nelson’s goal was to limit the population growth. In this quote, he suggests limiting immigration as a method. Unfortunately, we sometimes see much more radical methods being employed by nations like China – such as forced abortions. The idea of limiting population is the antithesis of God’s command to fill the earth. He made the earth perfectly capable of supporting a population many times larger than we currently have (read about the overpopulation myth here). We need not adopt the same attitude as the people at Babel.

Still another thing that bothers me about Earth Day is the misguided notion that it’s somehow noble to leave the environment untouched. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe we should be good stewards over the environment; but don’t forget that God said, “Let them [men and women] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). Time and Date.com says, “Earth Day is usually celebrated with outdoor performances, where individuals or groups perform acts of service to earth.” Excuse me? Acts of service to the earth? The earth is here to serve us; we are not here to serve the earth.

Finally, I’m a little uneasy with the whole “nature worship” that seems to go on this day. Romans 1:25 talks about how people, “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” I remind you of the dreadful day of the Lord discussed in 2 Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This earth and everything in it is going to pass away. While we’re here, don’t pollute, act responsibly, and let’s be good stewards over what God has given us. Beyond that, don’t get too caught up with this “Earth Day” craze. I believe it focuses on all the wrong things.

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: and thy glory above all the earth;

Psalm 108:5

Today is Darwin Day

Today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. There’s been a certain amount of fanfare leading up to today but not what I expected. Having checked around on the web a little, I’m surprised there wasn’t more coverage of the event. Yahoo didn't mention it on its front page. Darwin didn’t show up in Yahoo’s top ten searches either. And on The Learning Channel, he was totally eclipsed by Abe Lincoln (who coincidentally was also born 200 years ago today).

By the way, isn’t it odd there’s no Newton Day or Einstein Day?

Darwin, of course, is considered the father of modern evolutionary theory. The publishing of his book, The Origin of Species, was a landmark in science, where the idea of adaptation via natural selection was given voice. Today, even Darwin’s name is sometimes considered synonymous with his theory – “Darwinism.” This icon of evolution, though, is also iconic of the attitudes of many disbelievers today.

As a young man, Darwin considered a career in the clergy and studied Theology at the University of Cambridge. But Darwin had begun to doubt his faith and expressed his doubts to his cousin, Emma, whom he later married. Perhaps the turning point in his life came at the death of his 10 year old daughter, Anne. In a letter to botanist, Asa Gray, Darwin wrote the following:

"With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

Evolution and theism don’t blend well. The god of evolutionists is a cruel one who creates by destroying. To them, death is not the enemy, it’s the favorite tool of god. It’s no wonder that evolution tends to undermine faith.