Posts by Shining One

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

Irrational Naturalism (#201)
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Abstract
"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:9-10).

One of the most disturbing attitudes of most evolutionists is their insistence on naturalism as the premise for explaining everything from the origin of the cosmos to the origin of the human soul. The fact is that total naturalism is quite devoid of real explanatory power for almost anything.

Except for the origin of the universe itself, the most difficult development would have to be the origin of life. Just how could non-living chemicals on the primeval earth transmute themselves into some kind of living and replicating cell?

Evolutionists will usually admit that they don't know how this happened. For example, the cosmologist Paul Davies admits their utter ignorance on this vital subject:

It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts [he might just as well have said there are none] when it comes to the origin of life. . . . Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously or-ganised themselves into the first living cell.1

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water. But amino acids are not alive, and no one has ever generated life in a test tube. Most evolutionists have stopped trying altogether. An article in the journal Evolution several years ago noted that:

. . . most hypotheses about the origin of life from nonliving matter lie outside the main body of evolution theory. For example, the contents of volume 54 (2000) of Evolution comprise 192 primary research articles, but not one that concerns the origins of life.2

That statement could probably apply just as well to the 2001-2004 volumes.

But if the naturalistic origin of life is not part of the worldview of evolution then why do they insist that it be taught dogmatically in our schools? If the possibility of special creation or intelligent design cannot even be mentioned as a possibility (a policy on which they insist), then why cannot the tremendous odds against the naturalistic origin of life at least be mentioned?

For a long time it was believed that life arose in the primeval soup. But that idea has been largely abandoned and most evolutionists now believe life originated in the rocks and minerals of the early earth. For example, Robert Hazen, of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, in the lead article in a recent issue of the journal Elements says:

In this issue of Elements, four of the most creative minds in origins research present their original insights on the geochemical origins of life. Each author has studied the field in depth, and each has come to an inescapable conclusion: rocks and minerals must have played a pivotal role in the transition from the blasted, prebiotic Earth to the living world we now inhabit.3

Nevertheless, Hazen has to conclude that:

Scientists are still far from understanding the ancient, intricate processes that led to the origin of life.4

The journal in which these studies appeared is a relatively new journal, sponsored by several important geo-chemical and mineralogical societies. Like the writers in most other scientific journals, these scientists are all committed to a naturalistic evolutionary origin of life, even though they all -- one by one -- admit they don't have a real clue as to how it happened. But they seem sure that it could not have been in the primeval soup. So it must have been in the rocks and minerals.

For example, George Cody, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, tries to discuss certain geochemical processes which conceivably might generate organic-type reactions which could lead to primitive metabolism. For example:

Natural transition metal sulfide minerals can promote a broad range of organic reactions, either catalytically or as reaction participants.5

But then he says:

Whether and how this chemistry may have aided the emergence of life remains a mystery.6

He had already noted, in beginning his article, that:

At present there is no completely satisfactory theory for the origin of life.7

A number of biochemists have been suggesting for several years that the first life forms must have been RNA. James Ferris speculates on how this might have happened. But then he says:

Biochemistry is too complicated to replicate from generation to generation without a reliable mechanism to pass on genetic information. In all known lifeforms, that mechanism depends on the double-stranded molecule DNA and its close relative, the single-stranded RNA, or ribonucleic acid. But there's a catch: You need DNA to make proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA. Which came first?8

Despite this enigma, Ferris still believes that prebiotic reactions somehow generated RNA and that mineral and metal-ion catalysis was absolutely essential in the process. Another writer in the symposium also admits that:

. . . understanding the chemical beginnings of life poses major challenges. How could the first self-replicating and energy-supplying molecules have been assembled from simpler materials that were undoubtedly (sic) available on the early protocontinents? Most scientists abhor spontaneous generation, much less the wave of a magic wand from God or the inheritance of living organisms from outer space.
. . . The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation.9

The final article in this symposium was written by Professor Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow. He is believed to have been the first scientist to suggest that life arose from clay minerals (an idea which led some progressive creationists to suggest that this would somehow confirm the Genesis record that God formed Adam from dust!) and is considered to be the prime authority in this particular field. But he is not much help in this study, mainly pointing out how complex the problem is.

For an organic chemist, it is humbling to think about bacteria because these supposedly simplest of organisms are amazingly good at doing organic chemistry. They can put together molecules requiring many steps in their making. Difficult, often huge molecules such as proteins are churned out, thousands of different kinds of them, each a characteristic constellation of some thousands of atoms and with every atom connected up just so.10

And just how could such phenomena get started?

Surely there must have been a prolonged or intensive evolution through natural selection to have brought such machinery into existence.11

And that explains it?

The real answer is creation.

The patriarch Job said long ago that God is the key to all mysteries, "In whose hand is the soul [or `life'] of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10). With particular respect to mankind and the human body -- the most complex "living thing" of all, the psalmist has said, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psalm 139:14). To try to explain the origin of life without acknowledging God is entirely irrational, no matter how many degrees and scientific articles a scientist can claim.

The prophet Jeremiah preached that those people of Israel who had abandoned God to worship some pagan idol ought to be deeply ashamed, "Saying to a stock, Thou art my Father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: . . ." (Jeremiah 2:27).

If it is shameful to think sticks and stones can generate life, is it not just as irrational to attribute it to rocks and minerals? It was the apostle Paul who said concerning the pagan scholars who try to substitute "Nature" or some image depicting natural processes for the real Creator: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).

Only the Living God can create life! "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4).

Endnotes

1. Paul Davies, "Born Lucky," New Scientist (vol. 179, July 12, 2003), p. 32.
2. Michael F. Antolin and Joan M. Herbers, "Evolution's Struggle for Existence in America's Public Schools," Evolution (vol. 55, December 2001),
p. 2381.
3. Robert M. Hazen, "Genesis: Rocks, Minerals, and the Geochemical Origin of Life," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 135.
4. Ibid., p. 137.
5. George D. Cody, "Geochemical Connections to Primitive Metabolism," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 143.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., p. 139.
8. James P. Ferris, "Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 146.
9. Joseph V. Smith, "Geochemical Influences on Life's Origins and Evolution," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 151.
10. A. Graham Cairns-Smith, "Sketches for a Mineral Genetic Material," Elements (vol. 1, June 2005), p. 157.
11. Ibid., p. 161.

* Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

49

God and Science

by Shining One in

now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

Shining One

Seymour,
How do you know the rates of decay have been constant? Where are the observable measurments any further back than fifty years ago? I thought 'science' was based on observable data and not speculation? LOL
Rex

49

God and Science

by Shining One in

now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

Shining One

Tetrasap,
You are on a real campaign here, aren't you? What is the basic fear that you have, that maybe you have made a big mistake and when you see someone like me standing and defending my faith it gets you angry? Do you feel like a 'grown up' when you cuss and cavort, insult and deride? Its awful easy to act like a tough guy in a cyber arena or behind the wheel of a automobile. Do you have a problem with road rage also?
Rex

23

Why do tragedies happen....

by Shining One in

...the answer is in genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0923rita.asp .

rex

Shining One

Hey Almost,
What does scripture say in Romans 3:10? Paul uses Old Testament to expound on the teaching of inherited sin. Kennedy is honestly establishing a Christian belief that is backed up by the word of God. It doesn't matter one bit that you are offended or indifferent. We are not to compare ourselves to each other and say, "I am better than that person", which is exactly what you are doing. We are to compare ourselves to God the son. When we do that, we are each found wanting: none of us are good!
THAT is why Jesus came to die, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son that we should not perish but have eternal life." We can have Christ not only cover (atonement) but remove (propitiation) our sin and the debt we could never pay is paid in full! Yes, God let the human race continue in its sin but then He PAID THE PRICE HIMSELF. All we have to do is accept the sacrifice (Rom. 10: 9-11) and live not for ourselves but for a higher standard, through Jesus Christ.
"We are saved by grace, through faith and not that of ourselves. It is a gift of God, not of works, lest anyone boast." Eph. 2:8-9. Do you want to see justice? I don't. I would rather see grace in my life. This is a foundational truth.
Do you know that each year we are only 18 years or so from being barbarians again? Think of it this way. A human being left to be raised with no morality nor compassion will not turn 'good'. He will always turn out bad. YOu don't have to teach a child to be selfish or lie. It happens no matter what society wants to believe. We are not 'good' in any way when left to our own resources.
Rex

26

LOL, You Know got De-efed and has a book!

by Shining One in

http://www.jehovah-has-become-king.com/ .

i have to thank cygnus for pointing out who this wacko really is.

do any of you remember old you know?

Shining One

Tetrasap,
>it's the same smelly sh!t.

Tell that to Jgnat......oh, I forgot. You would lose your 'brownie' points.
Rex

163

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat in

i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

"the bible is factual.

" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

Shining One

No proof of God you say? The fact that you are here, aware that you are alive and working at a computer terminal (which had a designer!) should give you some idea that there is a God. This is what seems to be lacking amongst the unbelievers, common sense judgments.
Rex

163

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat in

i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

"the bible is factual.

" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

Shining One

>Can bible claims be similarly tested? Can one or more people independently test and observe bible claims such as the origins of the universe? The existence of a garden of Eden? Most of the bible cannot, because the bible consists mainly of historical accounts. We haven't invented a time machine yet that can take us back to verify the claims. Therefore, the "bible" in it's entirety, cannot be "factual".

Can naturalism be similarly tested? Can one or more people independently test and observe Darwin's claims such as the timeline needed or the existence of transitional species? The origin of life from non-life? None can do this, because the theories consists mainly of speculations and data that can be interpreted in several ways equally. We haven't invented a time machine yet that can take us back to verify the claims. Therefore, 'natualism' in it's entirety, cannot be "factual". LOL

>Based on this definition, what is "factual" about the bible? These are all factual statements:
- There is a bible.
- The bible is a compilation of many written works, composed over thousands of years.
- There are various translations of the bible available.
- There are also disputes as to which works should be included in the bible, and which excluded, though there are a core set of works that all have in common.

The Bible as we know it was established by the third century. It is not as much in dispute as you typically claim. You use this in order to try and have a 'pick and choose' faith and claim that this is reasonable. I would put you a little to the 'right' of heretics like Bishop Spong though, LOL.

>The following is not a "factual" statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:
- Every event described in the bible happened as written.

This is another 'straw man' lingering from our discussion. You are talking about strict literalism not Biblical interpretation. Scripture needs to be read and analyzed like any other writing work, using solid methodology and exegesis that established the context of each passage. This is not possible when one arbitrarily determines which teachings of the Bible we will follow by their popularity to us and others. The Bible defines itself as the word of God. When we cheapen it to the point that the popular norms of the present time overule its veracity, it ceases to be a what IT claims to be.
Rex

163

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat in

i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

"the bible is factual.

" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

Shining One

Hey KidA,
You keep asserting you are a 'research scientist'. Your posts and reasoning sound just as comman as the rest here. BTW, that's an observation of the evidence at hand. LOL
Jgnat,
I am not going to follow you around so don't worry. I am just curious about your seeming inability to take a stand beyond the lukewarm.
Rex

163

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat in

i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

"the bible is factual.

" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

Shining One

>Nobody tell Rex it's here, OK?

Cheap shot as usual, Gnat. You 'play to the popular' as usual and the 'popular' always draws applause. I wonder why the gospel is so offensive to you and others here? What did Paul have to say about that?
Rex

163

The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat in

i read the most extraordinary claim the other day.

"the bible is factual.

" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?

Shining One

Big Dog,
>I agree with all of the above, people should not try to pass their faith off as fact, nor should they try to use science on matters of faith. Each has its own domain and should stay there.

Ah, but what about situations where evidence bolsters the contentions of faith? What you really want is for none who have faith to use the evidence of science to prove that they may have facts on their side. The idea that the 'domains' do not in any way come into the context of the argument is a way to force those who have faith into a mold of your making. You don't want to deal with disputes in an honest way. Those who have faith must keep silent and not dispute the self-affirmed demagogues of scientific thought!
Rex