Originally posted on December 1, 2016
One of the first things that living for Christ in America will cause is friction with non-believers. Jesus warned us that this would happen, not just in America, but throughout the world. The world hates Him, and therefore it hates us. This is especially true with those who are militant regarding a humanistic world view. They believe that we are here purely by chance, with no accountability to anyone other than our own ethical stances and social mores and laws.
I would like to explore one of the claims made by these militant humanists: that we who believe in a personal, creating God are irrational and anti-science. So let me start at the beginning—the nature of the universe.
According to http://www.cosmotography.com, today, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (or LCDM) model is the latest incarnation of our understanding about the origin of the Cosmos. It represents an improvement of the big bang theory by positing most of the physical substance in the Universe consists of a material called dark matter.
Although it cannot be detected by current instrumentation, cosmologists believe dark matter is comprised of cold slow moving particles that do not emit electromagnetic radiation or scatter light, thus they also appear dark. However, the gravitational effect of dark matter can be observed on visible material, such as galaxies and observations of background radiation. (http://www.cosmotography.com/images/galaxy_formation_and_evolution.html)
The key words here are, “cannot be detected” and “believe”. In an article posted on March 17th on www.Space.com, states, “True to its name, dark matter is invisible — it does not emit, reflect or even block light. As a result, dark matter can currently be studied only through its gravitational effects on normal matter. The nature of dark matter is currently one of the greatest mysteries in science.” So, scientists can observe a phenomenon and presume that dark matter is the only possible explanation for that phenomenon.
The reason for this theory is that the visible universe does not work by itself. The mass is insufficient for the gravitational forces to hold things together. For this reason, explanations must be researched. Since intelligent creation is dismissed outright, another reason must be accepted to account for this discrepancy.
The second area I want to shed light on is the origin of life on this planet. For life to exist here in its current form, there must be Carbon. An article published in the online Cosmos magazine (https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/how-carbon-reached-earth-stars), states that stable collections of Carbon atoms called “buckey balls” may be responsible. Wired magazine postulated in 2011 that a number of “lucky” molecular collisions of Helium-3 and -4 with Beryllium resulted in Carbon. Others postulate that asteroid and comet collisions with earth brought the necessary Carbon to earth (https://carbonpilgrim.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/deep-carbon/, http://phys.org/news/2016-09-earth-carbon-planetary-smashup.html). No one seems to be certain.
What has been stated is that Carbon had to have been introduced in the earth’s mantle after the earth’s core had formed, according to Rice University petrologist, Rajdeep Dasgupta, in the article referenced above from www.phys.org. So this external body would have had to have Carbon itself, traveled through a universe that was exploding outward from a single point, and collide with our planet with such a degree of precision that the earth was not destroyed by the impact, yet leave sufficient amounts of Carbon so that life would be possible. Meanwhile, earth would have to have lucked into an orbit that was close enough to a stable star so that life could be sustained. I am not saying that this scenario is not possible, but I cannot imagine that it can be supported scientifically. By that, I mean that the “observation and experiment” that forms the basis of the scientific method would be hard-pressed to validate that the introduction of Carbon occurred through this cosmic, three-dimensional billiard shot.
Then we have evolution itself, supported by the fossil record. This presents problems on two fronts: we have seen no evidence of evolution yielding more complex organisms, and the fossil record does not adequately show a linear progression from simple to complex organisms. We have fossils of very simple organisms early on, and then we have the Cambrian explosion. Although there are some explanations for the diversity that is found in the early Cambrian period, one statement that was made in an article on www.BioLogos.org, “The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms” (http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion#sthash.sPY9UaBa.dpuf) acknowledges that the relationship is not observable.
The Science Council states that science is “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” Merriam-Webster describes the scientific method as, “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” With that in mind, I have a few questions:
- If we have multiple hypotheses regarding the manner in which the earth received the carbon that is necessary for life, with no real consensus; and we have a “notoriously incomplete” fossil record, and no documented instance of observed evolution that resulted in a more complex creature than it began with; how is this less faith-based than the belief in an intelligent Creator?
- With the lack of observed evidence to prove this theory, why is it presented as fact?
- Why are the adherents to this belief system viewed as rational and free-thinking, whereas adherents to the intelligent Creator belief system viewed as anti-science, backwoods, and bigoted?
So, when you encounter this friction, remind them that their system is based as much on faith as ours is. However, ours is also supported by testimony that is captured in scripture. Theirs is supported on assumption, conjecture, and speculation.
darrellzwriting 