Creation or Evolution?

CreationandEvolution3

This web page is specifically devoted to providing information on Evolution, Intelligent Design (ID) and to a much lesser extent, Creationism.

What the vast majority of the information that is provided below focuses on is the conflicting beliefs that all that we see and all that we can scientifically investigate in our world and the universe, either points to having been created by undirected random chance (Evolution) or an unidentified intelligent causal agent (Intelligent Design). Intelligent Design does not specifically identify the intelligent causal agent as God and consequently is not based on Biblical sources. Where Biblical sources are considered is where Creationism comes into consideration.

We live in a materialistic world, where what we have been taught in school and in many universities is the prevailing materialistic worldview. Materialism is the view that everything is ultimately material in nature. At the most fundamental level, everything that exists consists of nothing but matter and energy. Everything is governed by the basic laws of physics and, in principle, can be completely explained in terms of those physical laws. Materialists deny the existence of spirit, and they look for physical explanations for all phenomena.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Natural selection does not acknowledge any specific intelligent causal agent but advocates that what happens through natural selection is undirected and simply the result of random chance.

There are usually two sides to every case that is being made. The information on this web page presents the other side. All I would ask is that you carefully read over and consider the information that is presented.

——————————————-

What you think you know about Evolution, what is currently being taught about Evolution and what scientists are actually saying about Evolutionary Biology behind closed doors are not necessarily one and the same.

For an overview of the top scientific problems with Evolution as identified by Jonathan Wells, who holds two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University, please click here for the direct links to his series on this topic.

Then take a look at this link: Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Or this 2014 post: renowned-chemist-says-evolutionists-do-not-understand-the-origin-of-life/

Or this recent post: evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins

And what-evolution-controversy-scott-turner-gets-high-praise-from-quarterly-review-of-biology/

A direct quote from the Darwinism is Broken link above reads as follows:

“The technical literature in biology is now replete with world-class biologists routinely expressing doubts about various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory, and especially about its central tenet, namely the alleged creative power of the natural selection and mutation mechanism.” “Nevertheless, popular defenses of the theory continue apace, rarely if ever acknowledging the growing body of critical scientific opinion about the standing of the theory. Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature.”

And this article which presents a relatively up-to-date overview of the sheer improbability of evolution evolving via mere chance: epsociety.org/library/article

Or this article authored by Nathaniel T Jeanson. Dr. Jeanson has a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University.

And this quote ” I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance. — Michio Kaku (cited in, String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created)

Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State University wrote the following concerning the origin of life: “I do not mean to disparage serious scholars who are doing their level best to crack the hardest nut of all. Quite the contrary: I would argue that, if our purpose is to understand life, the origin of life is the most consequential question in all of biology. It holds the key to understanding the relationship between the living and the inanimate, the quick and the dead. Each new bit of evidence strengthens our belief that organisms obey the laws of chemistry and physics; and scientific investigations have turned up no traces of a vital force to nurture the wellspring of life. We assume, then, that cells are material systems that arose by some sort of evolutionary process four billion years ago here on earth (or conceivably, someplace else). I share this premise, but feel obliged to note that, in the absence of evidence as to how this came about (or even of a plausible hypothesis), this explanation is merely a belief–a leap of faith. … Of all the gaps in our understanding of life, this one is the widest. Until we bridge it, we cannot lay to rest lingering doubts as to whether science has read nature’s book of biology correctly.”

If you would like to read a well documented and eye opening lengthy history of how the “Theory of Evolution” evolved itself, to it’s current status of “fact” versus “theory”, I would strongly encourage you to read this article authored by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. : Is Evolution a “Fact” of Science?

Do all critics on the validity of Darwinian Evolution come from a “religious” perspective? No they do not, as this link validates, but it does bear witness to the intense opposition that will quickly surface should anyone question Darwinism. Becoming “persona non grata” is a reality that non-religious scientists and scholars who challenge neo-Darwinism and/or sympathize with ID, often face, in pressuring them to conform to the materialist party line. And if you don’t think that there is a materialist party line I would recommend you check out the first quote on this link. Richard C. Lewontin is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Biology at Harvard University.

I know this is a complex subject and I am by no means any type of authority on this subject matter, but ….. and this is important, there are many highly qualified scientists who ARE authorities on this subject and they disagree with the basic tenets of evolution and what they are saying needs to be heard and considered.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

What is Intelligent Design all about and is there a Case for Intelligent Design? To get an good understanding of what is being questioned and advocated, please click on this link.

For an additional easy to read and understand overview of how Intelligent Design originated and the specific problems within undirected evolution that it addresses click on this link.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Is Intelligent Design the Same as Creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Though intelligent design is not based upon religious belief, it does affirm a key tenet of a biblical worldview—namely, that life and the universe are the products of a designing intelligence. If one is to believe all the information that is put forward with regard to “Intelligent Design” by the scientific community, one could easily make the assumption that belief in “Intelligent Design” is pretty much a joke. This link provides a typical overview of ID: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The problem being, it isn’t a joke and there are many Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications being produced that support the Theory of Intelligent Design. Of course, if you didn’t actually check to see if these scientific papers are being produced in support of ID, you’d never be aware of this fact. The list of scientific papers that have been submitted total 107 pages and have been updated as of 2017.

You may download the full bibliography of these Scientific Publications in Adobe pdf format from the link in this sentence.

There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Other scientists around the world are also publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers supportive of intelligent design. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Am I aware that the majority of scientists currently reject Creationism and Intelligent Design? Yes I am. But does a materialist mindset or worldview that denies or rejects that a supernatural being (the Creator or Designer) could possibly have anything to do with what we see in our universe and our world, have anything to do with this determination? Check this link out if you don’t think it is a factor: reiss-resigns-as-royal-society-stifles-debate-on-evolution or this link. Many learned scholars think it is a factor. Does all the new evidence being discovered support this materialist worldview? Many learned scholars don’t think it does.

This page will present a lot of information, a substantial amount of which you may not currently be aware of. Take the time to look at it, evaluate their collective findings and then make your own decision.

What science is discovering right now is simply amazing. Recent discoveries with regard to the Cambrian Explosion are identified here. You owe it to yourself and those you love to honestly look and consider. God says in His Word (Romans 1:20 NIV) that “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

If you would like to examine the actual probability of simple life beginning by chance I would highly recommend you view the following discussion (including all of the comments) at the following link: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/signature-in-the-cell-part-4-assessing-the-chance-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-life/

Honestly take a look at all of creation within our universe and gain an understanding of what has been made, how it’s been made, the utter complexity, the razor sharp fine tuning and balance, the extremely complex replication processes involved and the order and design of it all. It’s all around you, everywhere you look, both within and without. If the probability of all this happening by sheer chance (e.g. without an intelligent cause) is deemed highly unlikely, if not downright impossible, and we find that even the simplest single cell contains detailed DNA intelligent information that surpasses our wildest expectations, the question on how this intelligent information got there in the first place needs to be answered. By chance (without an intelligent cause) or by intelligent design (with an intelligent cause), you be the judge.

LIST OF INTELLECTUAL DOUBTERS OF DARWINISM
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1207#list

AN INTRODUCTORY LEVEL SERIES ON EVOLUTION OR CREATION?
case-making-101-creation-or-evolution
case-making-101-is-darwinian-evolutions-answer-to-the-origin-of-life
case-making-101-intelligent-design-vs-evolution
case-making-101-human-evolution-or-creation
case-making-101-how-darwinian-evolution-collapses
case-making-101-12-things-darwinian-evolution-cant-answer

oldearth.org/creation-science.htm (very extensive)
www.reasons.org/ (very extensive)
www.godandscience.org/ (very extensive)
www.michaelgstrauss.com/ (very extensive)

This link also provides a partial list of individuals, who are respected authors, Bible scholars, scientists, pastors, linguists, and more—that hold to a diversity of views on the timing of God’s creation. And yet all have affirmed, in quoted documented sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy, but rather may be considered plausible and valid interpretations, even literal interpretations, of the biblical text. Not one sees the question of age as a crucial doctrinal issue.

It is my hope that this page of information provides you with food for thought and assists you in your quest for understanding on this subject matter.