Evolution is False?

Why Evolution is
False
It ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics: The world is dissipating
energy not concentrating it. Disintegration is everywhere not the tendency
to integration or wholeness where things evolve to better and better. It is
water that runs downhill not uphill.
Under evolution time + chance equals greater diversity and greater
complexity? Empirically we observe just the opposite.
It does not answer the question of irreducibility: Like a mouse trap
certain key elements cannot evolve. They must appear spontaneously at the
same time such as the 3 parts of a mouse trap or it does not work. The
complexity of the flagellum in the ordinary cell is an example. Unless fully
constructed at the same time the cell fails systemically. Even Darwin stated
his evolutionary system could be disproved over the matter of irreducibility.
It refuses to recognize intelligent design as an alternative: In
statistics we know events in time space history either occur through
randomness or else have causation. The Grand Canyon is an example of
randomness of erosion. The appearance though of the figures on Mount
Rushmore point to causation or intelligent design.
Evolutionists have a bias: They view only the natural mechanical
materialistic universe exists. A supernatural cause or existence is not
discussed. They still are without an answer as to the original cause of the
material universe.
Like a print page consists of ink and paper (the form) this is a natural
phenomenon that can be described. However, the substance of the paper
such as language and graphics are of intelligent design.

Creationists have a bias: The universe has a supernatural origin that is
not only materialistic in design with profound complexity but has a non-
materialistic components invisible as much as gravity is to the natural
world.
Creationism is sensible while evolution relies for extreme
outliers: Every time we sit in a chair that chair is a creation of a builder. It
means someone designed and made it or it had a Creator.
To the evolutionist how long would we need to wait for a chair to appear
due to randomness which is far simpler in design and complexity that a
single cell?

Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries
That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe Audible
Audiobook – Unabridged
Stephen C. Meyer (Author), Timothy Andrés Pabon (Narrator), HarperAudio (Publisher)
The New York Times best-selling author of Darwin’s Doubt presents
groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on
breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.
Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that
scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief - that science
and belief in God are “at war”. Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer
challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with
decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent
design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt,
Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled
with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing
intelligence behind life and the universe.
Meyer argues that theism - with its affirmation of a transcendent,
intelligent and active creator - best explains the evidence we have
concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained
from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life.
Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate
mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the
data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind -
but the existence of a personal God.
A) Big Bang explanation of the time start of the material universe.
Something from nothing? Causation – must have a cause and must be
non material.
B) Fine Tuning Problem: Dozens of constants in physics there is no
room for error or the universe could not exist. Evolution gives no

cause of where did this fine tuning come from? How does complexity
come from chaos?
C) Biology
a. DNA – extremely sophisticated genetic code. Goes light years
beyond any software program. How does nonlife of the material
universe take the leap into life?
b. Cambrian phenomenon: Dembski methods of design detection
such as Mt Rushmore. It requires an intelligent mind to implant
a 3D portrayal of 4 recognizable historical figures. One idea
from a space alien. Need to search for the identity of the creator.
As the Cambrian era shows the sudden appearance of life.
i. Where are the ancestors?
ii. We have an engineering problem? From where did the
abundance of new code required to account for the
abundant new life? There was a monumental infusion of
complex data appearance.
Conclusion Meyers contends a Theistic explanation model provides a
coherent framework to account for the ensemble of these three phenomena.
Theism (especially Judea Christian) as intelligent design can be considered
a reasonable alternative. Deism might account for the Big Bang and Fine
Tuning aspects. The biological one makes it existentially personal able.
Insights from Chapters 1-3
#1
As evolutionary science has progressed, the room for religious belief has
continuously shrunk, undermining belief in an omnipotent and
omnibenevolent God.
#2
Since the late 1800s, important voices in Western culture have testified to
the “death of God,” including philosophers, scientists, historians, artists,
and writers.

#3
Those who argue that belief in God has lost its rational grounding
sometimes point to the advancement of modern science, and the picture of
reality it provides, as the primary cause of this demise.
#4
The notion that science has destroyed God is widely held in the media,
educational settings, and our culture at large.
#5
The fact is the polar opposite of what Richard Dawkins, David Barash, and
a slew of other popular scientific spokespersons have said.
#6 In the history of life and the cosmos, a transcendent and purposeful
intelligence has intervened. Such intelligence corresponds to what humans
have termed God, and this reverse theory is the return of the God
hypothesis.
#7
The universe had a definite beginning in time and space, suggesting a
cause beyond the physical or material universe.
#8
The assumption that science and religion are always in conflict is a myth.
The history of science shows that there is no conflict between science and
religion. The scientific revolution was a religious revolution.
#9
Science is a human endeavor, and humans are created in the image of God.
God made us with a capacity to reason, and to understand the world around
us. That’s why science works.
#10
The founders of modern science were not atheists. The most important of
the founders, Isaac Newton, was a Christian, a devout one. Other founders
of modern science such as Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, and William
Harvey were also Christians.

#11
Early Christian thinkers thought of the universe as a book, one that
revealed God’s glory. They also thought that studying the universe was a
way to worship God.
#12
Scripture is like a map. It tells us where we are. Nature is like a mirror. It
shows us who we are.
#13
During the scientific revolution, many scientists believed that nature is like
a clock or a machine. This means that nature is contingent and intelligible.
#14
The purposive design of the universe and living things is evident from the
fact that the more we learn about how things work, the more we learn about
how they
#15
Newton’s theory of gravity is about how objects with mass move in space. In
the absence of any physical mechanism that explains why all matter attracts
all other matter, Newton’s theory seems to imply that God directly governs
the motion of the planets.
#16
Many scientists and philosophers during the Enlightenment thought that
science and religion were in conflict. The Enlightenment taught that we
could have confidence in our own reasoning, rather than in the Bible or the
Church.
#17
Radical empiricism is a philosophy of knowledge proposed by
Scottish philosopher David Hume. Empiricism believes that the
only definite way to knowledge is through experience of the nat-
ural world through the five senses.
#18
Hume argued that the only kind of God who might exist—if any
at all—would be a distant deistic entity who never interfered or
otherwise operated discretely or discernibly in nature.

#19
Hume’s radical empiricism also indicated, however subtly, that
believing in God could not be justified by reason because God
does not qualify as an entity that humans can observe with their
five senses.
#20
According to Hume and other similar thinkers, the design argu-
ment is a fallacy, because it assumes that just because something
looks like it was designed, it was designed.
#21
Darwin’s theory of evolution says that living organisms only ap-
pear to be designed. They are actually the result of a blind process
of natural selection acting on random variations.
#1
Scientists and philosophers have wondered for centuries about
whether the universe had a beginning or was always here. They
have tried to answer this question by reasoning from logical or
theological principles alone.
#2
For a long time, people thought that the universe had always
existed. They thought that if the universe had a beginning, it would
have to come from nothing, which would be impossible.
#3
Physicists in the nineteenth century embraced Newton’s frame-
work, which included Newton’s assertion of limitless space that
suggested unlimited time to some.
#4
The enigma of the black night sky is known as Olbers’ paradox,
named after German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers. Every
line of sight would conclude with a star or galaxy if the universe

were endlessly big and stars or galaxies were spread throughout it.
#5
In such an instance, the night sky would look completely light-
ed, with no black areas. The fact that the night sky isn’t completely
black shows that the cosmos isn’t indefinitely big.
#6
Finally, a poet, not an astronomer, came up with an answer in
1848: Edgar Allan Poe.
#7
Unlike earlier theorists who believed that distant objects’ light
would become exhausted or obstructed, Poe suggested that the
cosmos was not ancient enough for light from the farthest reaches
of the enormous night sky to reach the earth.
#8
And if it wasn’t ancient enough, it couldn’t be infinitely ancient.
It would take seventy-five years before most astronomers caught
up with this visionary poet’s ideas.
#9
With his theory of general relativity, Einstein stunned the scien-
tific community in 1915. The big bang theory emerged as a result
of combining Einstein’s theory with observable astronomical data
for an expanding cosmos.
#10
Einstein demonstrated that time and space are inexorably inter-
twined to the point where they are one and the same thing: space-
time. Gravity, according to the new theory of general relativity, is a
warping of spacetime rather than a force.
#11
Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, the father of the
big bang theory, formulated a definite cosmological model of the

universe and cited evidence to show that the universe could change in size
over time and that it had changed—and was, in
fact, expanding.
#12
Though by the 1970s, most astronomers had come to accept
the big bang, the theory initially elicited strong philosophical
opposition among a large number of scientists. Were the cosmos
endlessly ancient, they would no longer be required to compre-
hend the genesis of matter at any finite point in the past.
#13
A limited universe, on the other hand, would require scientists
to address hard issues regarding the material world’s ultimate
genesis. It also presented the idea that the cosmos began as a cre-
ation event triggered by a cause that existed outside of matter,
space, time, and energy.
#14
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote a famous book called God
and the Astronomers that examined the big bang theory’s obvious
theistic implications.
#15
Though he admitted that these implications made him uncom-
fortable, he argued that the theory—by affirming the existence of a
beginning—seems to present the creation of the cosmos in terms
that a biblically informed theologian would be familiar with.
#1
In physics, fine-tuning refers to the discovery that numerous
features of the universe lie within extremely narrow and unlikely
ranges that are absolutely essential for sophisticated forms of life,
or even complicated chemistry, to exist, and hence any possible
form of life.

#2
Physicists have known since the 1950s that life in the universe
is dependent on a very implausible combination of forces and
properties, as well as an exceedingly implausible balance among
many of them, known as the Anthropic Coincidences.
#3
Complex chemistry and life would simply not exist if any of
these characteristics were changed even slightly. This is one of the
strongest arguments for the involvement of a higher power in cre-
ating the universe.
#4
Theistic design offers a simple and sensible explanation for the
evidence of anthropic fine-tuning. The rules of nature, as well as
the existence of nature and the entire universe, are governed by a
mind.
#5
The types of fine-tuning include the laws of physics, such as
gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and quantum
mechanics, as well as the initial conditions of matter and energy at
the beginning of the universe, and other contingent features of the
universe.
#6
The existence of life in the universe is made possible by the ini-
tial distribution of matter and energy in the universe. If that distri-
bution had been slightly different, the universe would have been
empty or full of black holes.
#7
The fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe is hyper-
exponential. That is, it is extremely improbable that the entropy of
the universe would be so low. The entropy of the universe had to
be that low, or else the universe would be a black hole.

#8
The universe’s expansion rate is fine-tuned. The expansion rate
of the universe, if too fast, would cause the universe to dissipate
too quickly for galaxies to form. If too slow, matter would clump
together too much, and galaxies would never form.
#9
The odds against getting a set of natural laws like ours are so
mind-bogglingly huge that the only reasonable explanation is that
a supernatural mind designed them.
#10
The DNA molecule is a long strand of nucleotides that can
store an enormous amount of information in the form of afour-character
digital code. DNA is a kind of language.
#11
The information in DNA is a message that is not found in na-
ture. It must be written by an intelligent being.
#12
Initially, many scientists believed that the genesis of DNA infor-
mation could be explained by completely random interactions be-
tween molecules in the earth’s seas or some other suitable envi-
ronment. However, few respectable scientists have endorsed this
viewpoint since the late 1960s.
#13
According to calculations, the likelihood of producing properly
sequenced, information-rich molecules at random is “vanishingly
small… even on the scale of… billions of years,” as physicist Ilya
Prigogine and colleagues put it.
#14
It’s possible that a single, bizarre, exceedingly unusual occur-
rence may take place. Many highly improbable events happen on a

regular basis. But a string of improbable events, like winning the
lottery every day, just does not happen naturally.
#1
Darwin’s theory of evolution says that all the animals we see
today were created by natural selection acting on random varia-
tions. He thought that all the animals we see today evolved from a
common ancestor. That common ancestor was a small, simple
animal.
#2
However, there is a pattern of sudden appearance of new living
forms. The fossil record does not support gradual evolution. It
shows that new species appear suddenly and fully formed, with no
evidence of gradual transformation from earlier species. This is
called “saltation.”
#3
In 1959, the centennial of Darwin’s book, scientists thought that
the theory of evolution was right because it was unrivaled and un-
challenged. Nevertheless, doubts soon began to arise.
#4
If the information required to produce life appeared suddenly,
then it was not produced by a gradual process. The sudden ap-
pearance of complex life forms, and the sudden appearance of
complex information in life forms, can be explained by a designer.
#5
Life is not the product of undirected natural processes. The
scientific evidence is consistent with the idea that God
supernaturally intervened in nature to create life and humans.

#6
Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and nonreligious versions of theism
all acknowledge a personal God as the primary reality, but each
has a different perspective on the nature or qualities of that God.
#7
Theism posits the existence of a personal, intelligent, and tran-
scendent God who also intervenes in creation. Deism claims that
God is a personal, transcendent, and intelligent being who does
not intervene in the created order after its creation.
#8
Naturalism, often known as materialism, asserts that matter
and energy, as well as natural laws, are the primary reality. Pan-
theism claims that the primary reality is an impersonal deity exist-
ing in matter and energy.
#9
We have reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian perspective
of the genesis of the cosmos and its confirmation of a super-
natural creator is correct, since we have evidence that the cosmos
had a beginning.
#10
According to the principle of causality or adequate reason, the
genesis of the cosmos would appear to need a cause. However,
since nothing exists save the natural world, according to natu-
ralism, nothing else could have been the cause of its emergence.
#11
Naturalists, virtually by definition, are unable to explain the
issue of the origin of the cosmos, and theism gives a better an-
swer than naturalism.

#1
Given what we know about the characteristics of intelligently
designed things, if an intelligent agent acted to construct the uni-
verse, we may reasonably anticipate it to produce observable func-
tional results such as living beings that rely on finely tuned or ex-
tremely unlikely circumstances, parameters, or configurations of
matter.
#2
Since we observe such highly improbable conditions in the
fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the
universe, we have cause to believe that an intelligent being de-
signed it.
#3
Theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile the claims of sci-
ence with the claims of religion.
#4
The theory of evolutionary creation asserts that the Creator con-
structed and maintains natural laws, including the mechanisms of
purposeful evolution.
#5
After the first instant of creation, deism rejects any divine action
in the natural universe. Most theistic evolutionists, on the other
hand, believe that God actively maintains the ordered concourse
of nature—the laws of nature—on a moment-to-moment basis.
#6
The New Atheists and others have persuaded millions of peo-
ple that scientific evidence, especially when it comes to the origins
of life and the cosmos, supports a materialistic or atheistic world-
view, via their books, television interviews, films, and lectures.

#7
However, the evidence thus far suggests that such assertions
should be reconsidered. The cosmos had a beginning, it was fine-
ly calibrated from the start, and our planet has undergone signif-
icant abrupt expansions in biological form and information since
its inception.
#8
The best, most causally adequate explanation for the emer-
gence of functional, specific information required to develop rad-
ical new forms of life is intelligent design.
#1
Since the advent of scientific materialism at the end of the nine-
teenth century, many scientists have considered it their respon-
sibility to explain all events and phenomena, even single occur-
rences like the birth of the universe, life, and awareness, without
referring to an intelligent design.
#2
Some scientists have come to consider their work as scientists
as part of a lengthy battle against religion’s absurdity. As a result,
they have steadfastly refused to consider any finding or expla-
nation that has implications beneficial to theism, regardless of the
cost to the scientific world’s coherence.
#3
For example, the multiverse, or the theory that there are an infi-
nite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that
looks fine-tuned, is an attempt to explain the fact that the universe
is fine-tuned for life without having to appeal to a designer.
#4
Our readiness to accept scientific statements that defy logic is

very telling of the true nature of the conflict between science and
the supernatural.
#5
In A Brief History of Time, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawk-
ing did not eliminate the possibility of a singularity. He simply
redefined it to be a boundary condition of the universe, not a
beginning of the universe.
#6
Hawking’s use of imaginary numbers to represent time is a
mathematical trick that allowed him to solve mathematical prob-
lems that would otherwise be unsolvable. It has no physical signif-
icance, and doesn’t correspond to anything in the real universe.
#7
The problem with most theories like Hawking’s is that they’re
just mathematical formulas. They don’t give any physical insight
into how the universe might have come into existence, and don’t
tell us anything about what happened before or during the singu-
larity, or if there even was a singularity.
#8
The rules of physics, according to proponents of quantum cos-
mology, explain the genesis of the cosmos. However, the laws of
physics describe the interactions of things that already exist within
space and time; they don’t create things.
#9
Thus, the mathematical expressions used by physicists to de-
scribe possible universes are simply descriptions of what is pos-
sible. They do not actually cause anything to exist in the natural
world. It’s by no means a satisfactory explanation that eliminates
the possibility of a creator.

#1
Besides being highly speculative and technically challenging,
the multiverse theory would still fail to explain the genesis of the
world in merely materialistic terms.
#2
This view does not attribute the genesis of our universe—or
any other universe—to a physical cause. It merely states that these
other worlds exist.
#3
In other words, even if the multiverse or many-worlds interpre-
tation “explains” the beginning of our and other universes in
some hazy way, the universal wave function or the basic physical
entity itself reflects prior intelligent design.
#4
As a result, attempts to reject the argument for God using cos-
mology research have resulted in nonsensical cosmologies that
erode faith in science’s credibility.
#5
Unlike the founders of modern science, who recognized that
their faith in God gave them cause to believe in the universe’s uni-
formity and intelligibility, as well as the human mind’s trustwor-
thiness, modern physicists who reject theistic belief have pro-
posed concepts that contradict, by implication, precisely such uni-
formity and intelligibility.
#6
Hawking, and those who derived from his scientific authority,
missed the obvious implications of the astonishing and unex-
pected scientific discoveries of the previous century, one of which
he helped establish: the universe had a beginning.

#7
We all live as though we think that nature will continue to dis-
play the same basic rules and regularities in the future as it has in
the past, and only the belief in a loving God can adequately explain
the validity of that and other fundamental assumptions.
#8
Theism not only solves many philosophical issues, but actual
evidence from the natural world strongly suggests the existence of
a great mind behind the cosmos.
#9
The exquisite, interconnected, and informational complexity of
living organisms, as well as our beautiful, expanding, and beauti-
fully calibrated cosmos, bear evidence to the reality of a tran-
scendent intelligence—a personal God.
#10
The return of the God hypothesis reawakens the optimism that
our search for ultimate purpose will not be in vain.

Evolution is False?

More Related Content

Similar to Evolution is False?

More from Alan Haller

Recently uploaded

Evolution is False?