Three...that's a good, solid number. More than a little, less than alot...makes the work seem doable, kinda like when things are priced at X-dollars and "99 cents" so that it "feels" like less than the full, rounded-up amount. Makes the consumer feel better about buying it, and more likely to do so, even if the difference is as minimal as seeing "49.99" instead of "50".
Speaking of buying [into] things without considering the reality of it, and the sweet balance of "threes", let's talk Naturalism.
Q: Explain three problems about the naturalistic explanation for life.
A: Well, the major problem with the naturalistic explanation of life is that it does not actually conform to the observations and implications of science, but that is quite the blanket statement. Pure observation has thrown many a doubt in the naturalists's path to a truly naturalist origin of life. Three such areas where science itself has chipped away at the theory of naturalism lie in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology.
In the Physics department, we are faced with the problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that everything is in a state of Degeneration, or, more simply, things tend to move from Order to Chaos. We can see this principle play out in day-to-day life: any created thing, be it a book or a human being, left to nature's devices eventually ages and breaks down in a process that begins the moment the thing begins completion. To say, then, that somehow, in this big primordial soup, chemicals moved in the opposite direction - from chaos to order - over and over and over again, ordering themselves and combining just perfectly so as to create life works completely against this Law. Physics as a study demands constants, but naturalism is basically trying to pull a stunt where this Law somehow didn't exist until human beings were formed. That is a pretty ridiculous thing to claim, rationally or otherwise, considering there has never been any evidence that life ever can, ever has, or ever will work that way.
Nextly, in the department of Chemistry, naturalism claims that truth lies in abio genesis. However, considering the complexity of the cell, it's interworking parts, and the nature of DNA, they're going to have a tough time playing with the percentages. By percentages, I mean the likelihood of even a single strand of protein creating itself from a vat of acids. DNA, the methods by which it is undone, and transcripted, and translated into proteins, which are then properly shaped to perform a specific job perfectly with other proteins...the chance ANY ONE part of that amazing machine came about without some form of intelligence to design it is so tiny that it is almost as intellectually hard to comprehend as the depth of Outer Space. To rule out Intelligence just to conform to abio genesis and avoid any potential religious connotations is cowardice and bad science.
Thirdly - Biology, and the issue of mutations. Even if you somehow managed, by some miracle (<---oh look, a "religious" word in a scientific argument, we're all gonna DIE.) to actually create a single cell, any mutations then that the cell would be subject to would more than likely kill it. See, even today we really have next to zero examples of mutations of the genome being beneficial, and even then, even fewer where the mutation is passed on. Four winged fruit flies die out, resistant bacteria die in the presence of the parent bug, nature abhors the freak. And even if a mutation created something next to beneficial, potential means nothing. Nature, without a mind, cannot look at "potentially beneficial". Either it works or it doesnt, and if it doesnt have all it's parts it dies. Yeah, maybe that second pare of wings would be great if there were muscles attached, but Nature cannot say "oh hey, we should put muscles here". The wings just dont work, the flies die, and the two winged fruit flies live on. There is no evidence mutation enough occurs to create new species today. The only evidence science has for anything remotely evolutionary from any cell ever is for micro-evolution, a form found in the accenting of certain traits in a single species to survive in their surroundings. Never have any of these animals left their species though to become something they're not. There is no evidence in the fossil record, there is no observable evidence, and there is simply no chance that "simple mutation" could bring us to ...ultimately, "us". There just isn't.
...I suppose just as Christians had to learn to stand down to the pursuit of new Scientific theories for the sake of good science, Evolutionists will have to do the same. Look guys, I'm sorry if REAL science leaves you sore because maybe, just maybe, Humans arent all you think they are. But to be a scientist, you need to be able to put your biases and heartaches aside and look at the facts. These are the facts. This is the work of Intelligent Design. This is the power of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment