In its simplest
form, the logical principle known as Occam’s Razor contends that “When you have
two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one
is the better.” That is, the simplest explanation is usually correct.
Although much of
the scientific community (not all) has embraced the theory of Darwinian
evolution, there is a much simpler way to view the origins of all that we see
around us. The simpler view is INTELLIGENT DESIGN, the idea that “certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an
INTELLIGENT CAUSE, not by an undirected process such as natural
selection.
In our previous
devotional post, we commenced an examination of some of the ‘holes’ in
Darwinian theory. theory. We have
discovered at least five major problems with the current theories of biological
and chemical evolution. Two of them, pertaining to the scientific
disciplines of genetics and biochemistry, have already been addressed.
Today, we highlight the remaining three.
§
PALEONTOLOGY: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils. The fossil record’s overall pattern
is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and any possible
candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule.
This has been recognized by many evolutionary biologists such as Ernst Mayr who
explained in 2000 that “new species usually appear in the fossil record
suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” Similarly, a zoology textbook observed that
“Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly
disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear
abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered
that form a transition from their parent group.” These facts raise serious questions about the
Darwinian theory of evolution.
§
TAXONOMY: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s so-called “Tree of
Life.” Biologists hoped
that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life in which all organisms are clearly
related. It has not done so. Trees that describe the alleged ancestral
relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological
characteristic very commonly conflict with trees that are based upon a
different gene or characteristic. As
the journal “New Scientist” explains,
“different genes tell contradictory evolutionary stories.” The eminent microbiologist Carl Woese
explained that such genetic conflicts “can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree.” This conclusion implies a major
breakdown in common descent, or the hypothesis that all organisms share a
common ancestor.
§
CHEMISTRY: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery. The mystery of the origin of life is
unsolved and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution
include a lack of explanation for how a ‘primordial soup’ for all living things
could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information
required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions. As the evolutionary biologist, Massimo
Pigliucci, has readily admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life
originated on Earth by natural means.”
While these are
important facts that call into question Darwin’s theories, we need to explore
the deeper root cause for the scientific perspective that spawned evolutionary theory. George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist who
became an American citizen, was a nuclear physicist and the foremost advocate
of what is known as the BIG-BANG
THEORY. This theory states that
the universe was formed following a colossal explosion that took place billions
of years ago.
One of the
foundational arguments for the big-bang theory is that the universe continues
to expand in all directions at the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per
second or approximately 299,000 kilometers per second. The scientific community drew the ‘logical’
conclusion – that a huge explosion must have occurred, causing the accelerated
distribution of matter throughout the cosmos.
While their logic
seems sound, their conclusions are questionable. Let’s employ Occam’s razor here. If
indeed an ‘explosion’ did occur, as scientific evidence seems to suggest, why
is it necessary to presuppose it to be an entirely spontaneous and random
event? Is it not just as easy and reasonable to conclude that such a
primordial event was the FIRST ACT of
an INTELLIGENT DESIGN for
the universe?
Let’s consider the
perspective of the philosopher, Aristotle, who was absolutely convinced that
GOD was involved in the formation of the universe. Aristotle contended
that since we live in a universe that is characterized by the governing
principles of cause and effect, something must have started the ‘universal ball
rolling’, so to speak. And since no other original cause is either PROVABLE or DEMONSTRABLE, it can just as
rationally and rightly be concluded that “GOD is the FIRST CAUSE” or “THE PRIME MOVER” of the universe.
Wow!
So, if indeed there
was a primordial explosion that caused the universe to begin and to continually
expand, why would it be more probable that a RANDOM EVENT caused it than to believe that ALMIGHTY GOD conceived and executed it? Why? I
firmly believe that if there was such a primordial explosion, IT WAS GOD WHO SET
THE CHARGE AND LIT THE MATCH!
The principle
problem underlying Darwinian theory is that it is a GODLESS VIEW OF REALITY.
As I stated at the
outset, I believe that, in every case, the WORD OF GOD is right. The Bible clearly states
that “In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
The mere fact that humans cannot comprehend the ‘how’ of divine creation does
not render it to be false or untrue. It is virtually impossible for me to
accept the possibility that all that we see (including human beings) is the
result of an extraordinary series of random, spontaneously-producing events.
In the interest of
intellectual integrity, it is acceptable to allow for legitimate discourse
regarding the literal account of creation, as set forth in Genesis. Indeed, the fossil record could challenge the
given time frame (6 days) for creation. However,
this does not at all contradict the foundations of our faith. How so? The ways of God are infinitely transcendent,
therefore largely unknowable to us. And,
most importantly, GOD’S SCALE OF TIME cannot be reckoned by referencing human
clocks and calendars. (Isaiah 55:9 – Psalm 90:4 – II Peter 3:8) Indeed, HE is
“the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity.” (Isaiah 57:15) Time is a relative construct that is best
understood within the framework of the human temporal experience.
Bottom-line: It is
improbable that we will attain full understanding (in our frail and finite
world) of the infinite plans and purposes of God. According to the
Apostle Paul, “Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face [with
HIM]: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (I
Corinthians 13:12) My conclusion and conviction is that if I am required to
make a ‘leap of faith’ based on the option of either embracing the Word of God
or the speculations of men (however scientific they may seem to be), I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE GOD. Indeed, both OCCAM’S RAZOR and my GOD-GIVEN FAITH lead me to this understanding
and conclusion. My friends, it’s my
story and I’m sticking to it!
Sisters and
brothers, be continually blessed, and please (above all else) MAKE SURE YOU ARE
READY TO MEET OUR SOON COMING KING. Maranatha!
No comments:
Post a Comment