WHAT IS YOUR WORLDVIEW BASED ON?

Posted on by

Armand Nicholi, the Harvard psychiatrist and the author of The Question of God says that our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It helps us understand our purpose. Further, he said that our worldview determines our ethics, our values, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us answer the big questions of life: How did I get here? How am I to live? Where do I find meaning in life? What is my ultimate destiny? Basically, Nicholi is telling us that our worldview is more telling than perhaps any other
aspect of our lives.

Another way to understand our worldview is to see it as a map, a mental map that helps us navigate life effectively. As author Nancy Pearcey says, “…we need some creed to live by; some map by which we chart our course.” This is a worldview. In forming our worldviews, Dr. Nicholi says that we make one of two assumptions about life. The first is that we live in a godless universe; we are a product of nature that has evolved over time. This is a secular worldview that emphasizes scientific knowledge and its motto is “What do science and nature have to say?”
The second assumption is that there is a supernatural intelligence (God). He gives the universe order and life meaning. This is a spiritual worldview that is rooted in Biblical revelations. It places emphasis on spiritual truth and wisdom and its motto is: “What does God have to say about this?”

I have concluded that every person has an opinion on God and spiritual reality, even if it is a belief that He is non-existent. We all have a faith view of reality and it trickles down into our lives and influences the choices we make.

Author Tim Keller says, “How we relate to God is the foundation of our thinking because it determines the way we view the world. Whether you believe God exists or not, this belief is the foundation on which all of your reasoning proceeds. For instance, if you do not believe that God exists, it is a belief taken by faith and it becomes your faith view of reality. Whether you realize it or not, all your reasoning proceeds from this belief. You end up screening out all that does not fit with this view of life.”

Your worldview will ultimately explain where life originated, what life means, and what we are supposed to be doing with the years we are given. English mathematician John Lennox says: “What divides us is not science . . . but our worldviews. No one wants to base their life on a delusion, but which is the delusion? Christianity or atheism? This is what God has to say about the issue.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” Romans 1:19-23

MORE AND MORE EMINENT SCIENTISTS ABANDONING EVOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Posted on by

Foresight, by Dr. Marcos Eberlin, is about the design of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the inadequacy of naturalistic storytelling. It discusses the origin of life, the limits of natural selection, and the naturalistic bias that permeates the scientific community. It includes many examples of fascinating designs in living things and explanations for why evolution cannot reasonably be invoked to explain these features.

Marcos Eberlin has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Campinas. He boasts an impressive career with many accomplishments. He founded the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Lab, was the president of the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, and won the Thomson medal in 2016. Eberlin stands as a great example of a highly qualified scientist who does not believe in evolution and believes that the universe was created by a supernatural designer. This allows the book to stand out among Intelligent Design (ID) books, as it argues for the existence of a supernatural creator, and against the General Theory of Evolution.

The book is rather short but packed full of information. It contains nine chapters with roughly half the book focusing on the intricacies of life at the cellular and molecular level. These chapters focus on biochemistry, organelles, proteins, and DNA. The second half of the book focuses on multicellular organisms such as insects, carnivorous plants, birds, humans, and special features found in specific multicellular organisms and features shared among many multicellular organisms. The first half of the book is fairly technical. Unless you are already familiar with organic chemistry and cell biology, there is a good chance that you will need to consult a textbook or utilize an internet search engine.

Evolution has no foresight

This communicates the core argument of the book. Foresight is something not present in differential reproduction. The only things selected are physiological changes that provide an immediate and substantial increase in reproductive success. A mutation that notably increases root length could help with gathering essential nutrients from poor soil; a mutation that causes defective leaf development can produce thorns.Display footnote number:3 Both relatively simple changes provide clear costs and benefits without the need for a developing structure to be almost useless over millions of years.

This shows an issue with the ‘why’ in evolutionary storytelling. It is often easy to see how a certain feature is advantageous, and thus why it would evolve. However, this exercise in imaginative storytelling breaks down when you ask, “why would natural selection favour defective structures that would be a detriment to the species for generations?”

A good ID book, but still an ID book

The book contains many solid arguments in favour of intelligent design and does a great job of exposing the unscientific nature of evolutionary biology. While it does rise above the standard ID offering by identifying the designer as a supernatural, transcendent creator, he provides a flawed distinction between historical and operational science. The book still contains the typical shortcoming of books on ID. By ignoring the identity of the Creator, this book will have a limited impact in spreading the Gospel.

IMPORTANCE OF CREATION MINISTRIES INT’L AND ANSWERS IN GENESIS

Posted on by

Creation Ministries International (CMI) commonly receive testimonies from folk who have come to faith in Christ but then had a wilderness experience before finding their way to a confident faith. A major reason for this wandering is the doubts generated by the pervasive evolution/ long-ages mindset that crowds in upon the new Christian’s confidence in the Bible as the Word of God. Malcolm T. shared:

I became a believer in 1989 but in all of this time [20 years], I have been plagued by doubts caused because I couldn’t prove creation or doubt evolution. This had caused me so much trouble in my daily Christian walk and a lack of assurance. Recently, I came upon creation.com and began reading the articles every day and, praise be to God! I saw that creation is the truth and evolution is a lie and all my doubts and fears have disappeared …

Simply sharing a Creation magazine has led many to a restored Christian walk. Indeed, not just restored, but, like Malcolm, a much more confident and active faith.

I shared a post recently about Martyn Isles, an Australian evangelist that was being used mightily to share the Gospel in all States of Australia under the banner of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). Martyn has now moved to Answers in Genesis. This move was orchestrated by God and proved to me the importance of both Answers in Genesis and CMI. God is using both of these organisations to restore faith in the Bible (God’s Word) from Genesis to Revelation. You need to get behind and support both these organisations.

http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org.

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION PREPOSTEROUS

Posted on by

It is mathematically preposterous to infer macroevolutionary developments from microevolutionary observations according to Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA, and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US.

This new evidence is from an article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to Survive” by Brown and Hullender in an international journal called Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, which is a peer-reviewed publication established in 1950. It seeks to offer “informative and critical reviews of recent advances in different aspects of biophysics and molecular biology.

ABSTRACT

Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth-century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by the discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) is shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept of survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization, Schrödinger’s negentropy, and novel approaches.

Something essential is missing in the theory of biological evolution (Neo-Darwinism)

Any overall mechanistic explanation of the origin and evolution of life ultimately must satisfy two challenges: the transition from non-life to life, and the blossoming of life forms that are so extreme as to appear outrageous. The evolution of a few flowers on a hillside is reasonably explained by mutation and selection; it stretches logic to explain the millions of extremely diverse species seen currently and in the fossil record. It is difficult to conceptualize an insect that is novel or more…

A way forward

An example of the application of mathematics to a difficult science problem was the Drake equation which estimated the number of alien civilizations capable of radio communication with Earth (Loeffler, n.d.). Carl Sagan popularized it on the PBS broadcast Cosmos. Drake and his equation contributed significantly to the founding of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life (SETI). We propose an equation, modeled after the Drake equation, to stimulate thought about evolution probabilities (Eq. (1)). The …

Probability of evolution

Probability, like any scientific analysis, has limitations. Because evolution is generally accepted as scientifically established, probability assessment has largely been overlooked; it happened, we are here, so the probability is one. Evolutionary probability generally is said to be supported by the statement that billions of years make evolution possible. However, this overlooks the fact that time is a linear factor and evolutionary probability inevitability involves exponentials that are …

Self-organization is hidden in life chemistry

Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Laureate, and member of the Pontifical Academy, introduced the concept of the self-organizing power of matter into biological evolutionary theory (“Manfred Eigen: From relaxation kinetics to evolution,” 2018). His 59-page article titled Self-organization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecules (Eigen, n.d.) was published in 1971. Eigen did more than anyone before or since to apply mathematics to evolution. Throughout the paper, Eigen supports the narrative with …

The enzyme is essential for life

Life is the most unimaginable state of matter. For growth and replication, energy is essential. The cell is chemically far from equilibrium and maintained by intricately complex processes that require enzymes to make required chemical changes. All life forms use ATP as the ultimate energy source to pull reactions in favoured ways essential to life. The human, amazingly, using the power of enzymes makes approximately 450 pounds of ATP each day according to L. M. Krauss (2001). This requires that …

Aeon chemistry

As “the something” additional required to explain life we propose that the concept of life chemistry (aeon chemistry – meaning vital or life chemistry) be used for the biochemistry within cells that has the appearance of being directed or vital. The difference is not subtle; it cannot be avoided with intellectual honesty. Life, and most certainly its evolution, involves direction (for example, the descent of humans from a common ancestor). It is irrational to believe that chemistry to form a rock or a …

New physics and a fifth force in nature?

The long-awaited first results from the Muon g-2 experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are now available (UW News staff, n.d.). The data show fundamental particles called muons acting in ways not predicted by the current best theory, the Standard Model of particle physics. The finding is of tremendous significance. The result, made with unprecedented precision, confirms a discrepancy that has been concerning researchers for decades. Although it is…

Conclusions

Biology originated as a descriptive science; it has progressed to an empirical stage, and now it is time to retain both while boldly progressing into a theoretical phase. Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically. Biological evolution should be challenged with four objectives: (1) to redefine the limitations of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain what is fundamentally established and creatively to seek and define…

Article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive” by Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US – https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology

GREAT OPERATIONAL SCIENCE VERSUS BAD HISTORICAL SCIENCE

Posted on by

The article, “A New Measurement Approaches Perfection” in Quantam Magazine, April 10th, 2023 by Z. Savitsky, demonstrates the electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles: If the electron’s charge wasn’t perfectly round, it could reveal the existence of hidden particles.

The experiment measured the roundness of the electron with exquisite sensitivity. For comparison, “if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.” The experiment showed “The electron is rounder than that.” But this result in real operational science has disappointed advocates of the historical scientific theory of the big bang. Why? The big bang is the leading naturalistic cosmogony (Greek: ‘birth of the universe’). It basically states that energy appeared from nothing and turned into matter, as per Einstein’s most famous formula, E = mc2. However, The Standard Model of particle physics, among the best-attested theories in all science, throws up severe problems. In particular, any conversion of energy into matter must produce an equal amount of antimatter. Antimatter comprises antiparticles of the same mass but opposite charge (if the particle is charged) and magnetic moment as the corresponding matter particle. When an antiparticle meets its corresponding particle, both are quickly annihilated with a huge release of energy, again as per E = mc2. That is antielectron (positron) with electron, antiproton with proton, antineutron with neutron, etc.

The problem with the big bang is that the universe comprises overwhelmingly matter, with hardly any antimatter except for fleeting moments. As the article says: For one thing, our mere existence is proof that the Standard Model is incomplete since, according to the theory, the Big Bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter that would have annihilated each other.

How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. But notice the logical fallacy known as begging the question (Latin: petition principii)! That is any argument where the conclusion to be proved is presupposed (‘begged’) in one of the premises. In particular, although real operational science overwhelmingly supports the Standard Model, there must be something wrong with it because it means that the Big Bang would not work. How do we know that the big bang is true? Because we are here, and we got here from the big bang. This question-begging arises from the previous question-begging: that we arose by naturalistic means—no Creator necessary.

Leading evolutionary geneticist, Professor Richard Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of [evolutionary] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Because of this question-begging a priori commitment to naturalism (only ‘nature’ exists), evolutionary cosmologists have been trying to find loopholes in the Standard Model. In particular, any asymmetry that could explain why much more matter than antimatter was produced in the big bang.

Even with the incredible sensitivity of the latest experiments, the “result is consistent with zero and improves on the previous best upper bound by a factor ∼2.4.”1 This is great support for the Standard Model but a serious problem for the big bang. As stated at the beginning of the article, the experiments have not found any deviation from a perfectly spherical electron, despite unparalleled experimental precision.

Also, trying to find tinier and tinier deviations from a sphere is equivalent to looking for particles at higher and higher energy scales. In turn, this is equivalent to looking for more and more massive particles beyond the Standard Model. This experiment is so sensitive that it’s equivalent to energies above 1013 eV (electron volts). This is over ten times the energy the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can currently generate.

There is no question that this is excellent science: both great ingenuity and careful checking and cross-checking of data. The results back up an extremely well-supported and useful theory of particle physics. However, those committed to the big bang, regardless of real particle physics, continue to be disappointed. The best solution is: to stick to real science and abandon the naturalistic faith that demands the big bang.

Article by Jonathan Sarfati Electron is perfectly spherical – Real particle physics refutes big bang dogma: www.creation.com

GENOME MAKES EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE

Posted on by

The human genome is much more complex than anyone imagined. In fact, the level of complexity argues directly against any sort of evolutionary origin for the code that makes us. This episode features Dr Rob Carter and Gary Bates. This a must-watch video, just 19 minutes, particularly for young people to show that there is a master designer that has produced this incomprehensible complex universe. To my mind, no rational person could look at this video and think we were created by mutation and natural selection. And no one who is intellectually honest could do anything but be in awe of the genius of God.

ANSWERING THE SKEPTICS: NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD

Posted on by

The ‘no evidence for God‘ claim is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only creationists have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.

How should we respond?

CMI suggests you flip the script. Instead of you presenting a case for God, make them present what they think a case for God should look like. The simplest way to do this is to ask them: ‘What sort of evidence would you expect God to give?’

Many skeptics will say things like, ‘Well, none of the arguments I’ve seen convince me.’ Or they may just continue to demand that you convince them. Don’t let them off the hook. Hold their feet to the fire. Say something like: ‘Well, if I don’t know what would convince you, why should I bother trying? How do I know that anything I might say wouldn’t just fall on deaf ears?’

You want them to give you something concrete. But, failing that, your goal is to make them feel the irresponsible dogmatism of their skepticism. If skeptics hate anything, it’s looking like a gullible dogmatist. If they continue to avoid the question then walk away. The Holy Spirit may prompt you to pray for them but otherwise do not waste more time.

But if they do give you something concrete, then play the skeptic. What you want to do is to show them that even the case they expect would convince them has the same sort of holes they think exist in the case we make for God exists.

EXAMPLES:

Many skeptics will say things like: ‘Well! if I saw an amputee healed in response to prayer, that would convince me.’ Response: ‘Really? How do you know God would’ve done it?’ ‘The prayer’, they’ll respond. Your response: ‘That could just be a coincidence. Besides, it’s just a one-off event. What if it never gets repeated? That doesn’t sound scientific. Plus, how do you know something other than God didn’t step in to heal the amputee? Maybe aliens did it! At least we know aliens can exist, since we exist. But God? You’re just linking events that have no demonstrable link and labelling it with ‘God did it’ to cover for your lack of a scientific explanation.’ This sort of response is a real stinger because it’s exactly how most skeptics respond to cosmological and design arguments for God.

Some of them might say, ‘Well, if God appeared to me right here and said, “Here I am, believe in me!” then I would.’ Response: ‘So, you’d bow the knee at a vision that may very well just be a dream? How would you know for sure you didn’t hallucinate?’

Some might say, ‘If the stars read “God exists. Worship him”, I would believe.’ Response: ‘That would only be useful to people who knew the language the message was written in. Nevertheless, how do you know the stars don’t say that in a language you’ve never encountered? At any rate, why not other beings that want to deceive us? It’s not something we could say that only God could do, so why should we trust a message in the sky with practically no context? Besides, why should you expect God to arrange the stars just to sate your curiosity about his existence? Is that really reasonable to expect of God? Are we the centre of his universe?’

With such responses, you’re not trying to show that God doesn’t exist. Rather, you’re trying to show that we can always come up with reasons to doubt that will sound plausible to someone, no matter what evidence is put forward. And if they say, ‘Well, that’s what would convince me.’ Respond with: ‘So what? You can’t guarantee that it would convince every rational person. You didn’t say, “There’s no evidence for God that convinces me”; you said, “There’s no evidence for God”, period. If all you’re aiming to do is convince yourself, how can anyone else be sure that you’re really looking for the truth? And this isn’t just about trusting you. This is also about whether you’re even competent to look for the truth about God.’

At this point, they might start saying things like, ‘Well, all I can do is look at the evidence and do my best to figure out the truth. You have to do that for yourself, too.’ At which point you can respond with: ‘Exactly! That’s all I’m trying to do, too. But I genuinely think that things like the following are best explained by the existence of God (click on the links for a detailed explanation of each).

‘I see those things and more as evidence for God. I’m not saying that other explanations can’t be offered, or even that smart and sane people can’t disagree with me. Maybe you don’t find these to be conclusive proofs, but it’s a gross overstatement to say that they don’t qualify as evidence. Furthermore, when I look at them as honestly and critically as I can, I still think God is the best explanation for them. But when you say, ‘there’s no evidence for God’, you seem to imply I’m less than rational and/or honest when I say that. Is that fair?’

After all, that’s the real effect of this ‘no evidence for God’ claim. If they hold it consistently, they have to admit that you’re essentially irrational just for being a theist. But hopefully, by this point, they feel the unjustified dogmatism of their view, and walked it back a bit to admit that theists aren’t necessarily failing to reason properly when they believe in God. If you manage to do that, then you’ve won a huge victory. And that might be a good place to end the discussion for the time being. People often need time to process these sorts of things, so bombarding them with everything in our arsenal all at once is just unhelpful. For a start, they are probably not ready to hear most of it with an open mind. Rather, we try to deal with the person where they are at and try to nudge them a little bit in the right direction.

This information was assembled by Shaun Doyle of Creation Ministries International (CMI) in answer to the many queries CMI receives on how to answer skeptics’ arguments. http://www.creation.com

WHY AMERICA IS UNDER GOD’S JUDGEMENT

Posted on by

The vast majority of Americans — 96 percent — do not hold to a biblical worldview following the COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a new survey. A biblical worldview, the survey said, is one in which the entirety of a person’s “ideas about all dimensions of life and eternity is based on biblical principles and commands.”

Sadly, most of the institutional churches and their Bible Colleges no longer hold to the truth of God’s Word so why should these figures surprise us. Also, if the bulk of Americans do not believe God’s Word is the truth it is highly probable they will embrace the deception of the coming Antichrist and take the Mark of the Beast in order to survive.

Calling it a “significant change” in Americans’ worldview, the Cultural Research Center of Arizona Christian University led by researcher George Barna found in its survey that the lockdowns impacted the already-dwindling number of people who claim to hold a biblical worldview.

In what Barna called the first national study of its kind, the incidence of biblical worldview declined to a mere 4%, down one-third from the 6% recorded just months before the pandemic lockdowns started in March 2020. 

“When you put the data in perspective, the biblical worldview is shuffling toward the edge of the cliff,” said Barna. “As things stand today, biblical theism is much closer to extinction in America than it is to influencing the soul of the nation.” 

Part of the problem, said Barna, is that younger people, in particular, are “largely isolated from biblical thought in our society and are the most aggressive at rejecting biblical principles in our culture.”

Barna said Christian churches and schools should be putting more effort into helping their congregations and students think through the Scriptures. What Barna should have said is that churches and schools should be teaching our young people that evolution and billions of years of earth’s history are nonsense. Fortunately, God has raised up His ministries to provide excellent resources to overcome the deception: http://www.creation.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org are just two of the organizations that I recommend. Evidence for Noah’s worldwide flood is starkly evident with fossil fuels and billions of dead things preserved in the rocks all over the world. The flood, not billions of years caused the geology we observe today.

The impact of teaching that evolution not creation by God is the reason for the Cosmos has had a diabolical effect on our children.

Nearly one in five (19.7%) members of Generation Z consider themselves part of the LGBT community, with 13.1% describing themselves as bisexual, 3.4% identifying as gay, 2.2% categorizing themselves as lesbians, 1.9% saying they are trans-identified and 1.5% chose the “other LGBT” category when asked about their sexual orientation. The share of adults belonging to the LGBT community dropped in descending order by generation, with 11.3% of millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) having a significantly larger LGBT population than Generation X (3.3%), baby boomers (2.7%) and the silent generation (1.7%). Generation X is categorized as those born between 1965 and 1980, while baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964 and the silent generation was born before 1946.

Jesus told us beforehand that this is what the world will be like before He comes back to restore righteousness:

“And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Mark 13:12-13

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FALSIFIED

Posted on by

The Last Pillars of Darwinian Evolution Falsified: Further evidence proving Darwinian evolution wrong
by Jerry Bergman

Dr. Jerry Bergman is a famous creationist author who has extensively published over many decades and who has taught at several universities. He describes the research that went into this book:

“This project has been for me a lifelong study for which this book is a summary. It is the culmination of four decades of research on the issue of evolution, 41 years of teaching life science at the college level, and over 1,700 publications in 2,400 college libraries in 65 nations and 13 languages” (p. xvii).

In terms of specifics, this work focuses on taxonomy, so-called convergent evolution, irreducible complexity, pseudogenes, and antibiotic resistance. Bergman goes into considerable detail on all of these.

Irreducible complexity is the fatal problem for evolution

Bergman touches on some of the challenges facing commonly believed evolutionary explanations for the origins of complex structures, resulting from the co-option of components originally having different functions. He comments:

“… the availability of these parts would have to be synchronized … the parts must be correctly and properly positioned in 3-D space so they can be properly assembled … . Even if all of the parts are available at the proper time, the vast majority of assembly variations will be nonfunctional or dysfunctional” (pp. 145–146).

Some evolutionists have vulgarized the Intelligent Design explanation as a ‘jackpot or nothing’ one. But that is exactly what it is, and evolutionists have failed to show how the emergence of a complex biological structure can be anything other than ‘jackpot or nothing’.

Bergman has examined and deconstructed a variety of ‘pillars’ of evolution. Each one of them contains major flaws. Neither taxonomy nor genetics, for example, compel belief in evolution. Evolutionists have caricatured, but not overcome, the fatal problem of irreducible complexity. The best explanation for living things, whether somebody likes it or not, remains an intelligent designer.

A condensed version of a review of Dr. Bergmans book in the latest edition of The Creation Journal Volume 37, Issue 1, 2023

EVANGELISE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH CMI RESOURCES

Posted on by

Creation Ministries International (CMI), including their flagship Creation magazine, exists to help readers worldwide love God with their minds and imitate Christ in logical thinking. In every issue, they interview good examples of that; in their latest issue Vol 45, Issue 2 it is geographer Dr. Sarah Buckland from Jamaica (pp. 18–21) and biologist Dr. KeeFui Kon from Singapore (pp. 36–39). They also show how biblical creation is logically illustrated by super designs, such as the golden plover (pp. 24–25) and even the air we breathe (pp. 50–52).

And he [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37

“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience” 1 Peter 3:15

“​ Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1

What else is in the latest edition? Proof of the flood of Noah’s day, which must logically be global (Genesis 6–8). With an intense process like the Flood, we don’t need millions of years. And millions of years are necessary (but not sufficient) for evolution from goo to you via the zoo. The Flood explains the spectacular ammolite (pp. 12–13) and the wide Nile valley (p. 56). But God rescued a remnant of people (such as Shem, pp. 46–48) and animals on a massive Ark (pp. 32–35). After the Flood, people and animals migrated around the world, such as rafting monkeys (pp. 14–17).

A team of scientists at Australia’s Monash University has “discovered a new universal rule of biological growth that explains surprising similarities in the shapes of sharp structures” across a vast array of living things.

Our universe is governed by many precise and universal physical-mathematical laws, reflecting its lawgiving Creator. Many medieval founders of science, such as Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, and Thomas Bradwardine taught that the Creator upheld the creation in the language of mathematics. Centuries later, Galileo wrote that the universe is “written in mathematical language”. So the discovery that structures in living creatures follow a mathematical power law is fascinating, but not surprising.

This is just a small example of the valuable content of the Creation magazine. You need to subscribe. Go to http://www.creation.com to do so. I have at least 100 copies of back issues of Creation magazine if anyone wants some email me at ron@bakb.com.au.