For Online E-newspaper
Daily Nation : February 3rd 2014
DAILY NATION Monday February 3, 2014 thewag ‘got it wrong’ on creationism Our home, the earth, is but a speck in the vast cosmos with millions of giant stars, many times the size of the earth, whiling by. We are not alone... and we are outnumbered. dates to prop up their theory with enough time for the alleged evolution process to be complete. Talk of fudging again! Some dating methods point to a very young earth and hardly the millions of years that the evolutionist would need to back up his evolution hypothesis. Yet evolutionists chose these long dating methods arbitrarily. What is worse, there are missing links between apes and men. True, there have been alleged cases of fossils that have been claimed to bridge some gap between man and apes, but they have all been shown to be pure trickery. For instance, the so-called Nebraska Man was at first thought to be a half-man, but further tests showed that this fossil record is that of an extinct pig. Further, there are no fossil records linking reptiles and birds. Nothing but pure conjecture. Fourthly, evolution provides no error. He could not tolerate a world created out of nothing — creatio exnihilo — so he introduced a cosmological constant to conform his model to his presuppositions, namely that the universe exists timeless and is eternal. This infamous fudge factor was uncovered three years later by British cosmologist Arthur Eddington and disconfirmed by a further experiment in 1929 at California’s Wilson Mountain Observatory where Hubble (after whom the Hubble telescope is named) and Albert Einstein were present. Thereafter, Einstein recanted his fudge factor and admitted that this was the “biggest mistake of his life”. So, you ask, what is my point? GRT speculated that the universe is expanding and accelerating, and that has been proven to be accurate to the level of five decimal places. The key constants in the GRT, the speed of light and the gravitational constant, are incredibly precise for this theory to comport with reality, but did they have to be so drop-dead precise? Was this the product of chance and good luck? And there is more. The oxygen level in the atmosphere is 21 per cent. If it were 25 per cent, for instance, fires would erupt spontaneously, and if it were, say, 15 per cent, humans would suffocate. If the gravitation force were altered by as much as 0.000000000000 000000000000000000000001 per cent, the sun would cease to exist, and so would we. Talk of precision! If the centrifugal planetary forces did not precariously balance with the gravitational force on a knife’s edge, so to speak, nothing would be in orbit. The entirety of the universe, complete with its galaxies, stars, planets and all, would collapse. We can make the list of these incredibly fine-tuned constants even longer — in all, there are about 122 fine-tuned constants. Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (1 followed by 22 zeroes), astrophysicist (not the village mathematician) Hugh Ross calculates that the probability that the universe sprang into existence by chance is 10138 (one with 138 zeroes after it). In effect, there is no chance that the incredibly finetuned conditions that permit life on earth are the result of chance. All the evidence points to the existence of an intelligent designer, a cosmic, unmoved mover, in the words of Thomas Aquinas. Now, there have been spirited efforts by sophisticated atheists to refute this conclusion, but they have all failed. The finger marks of God on our universe are compelling. The story gets worse. The evolution theory has been now roundly dismissed by leading scientists as a sham. We shall see why, but let’ us first define what evolution theory is, as understood by the scientific community. The theory speculates that life came from non-life without intelligent intervention, and that all species of animals share a common ancestry. Firstly, the theory violates the law of bio-genesis and the cell theory. Simply stated, these laws mean that non-life cannot bring forth life and they are the bedrock of biochemistry. A mountain of dirt cannot reproduce even a one-celled amoeba. Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics shows that nature, left by itself, degenerates into chaos. The contours of the dry river bed at Hell’s Gate National Park reveal what nature does best when left alone — mindless twists and turns as the water gushes forth along the path of least resistance. The stark reality is that a singlecelled animal contains enough genetic information that can fill an entire library and is ordered in a highly complex format. Odongo would want to believe that this is the result of natural evolution, but as we have seen according to the second law of thermodynamics, nature does not produce, much less have the capacity to produce, specified complexity of a singlecelled animal. Some atheists have attempted to save face by stipulating that the first life emerged from some prebiotic soup, but they do not even tell us who the cook was. I will let readers have the last laugh on this. Thirdly, Odongo waxes several times about fossil records, touting this as an end-run around his evolutionary theory. Sadly, he does not check the facts before jumping into his tirade. Scientists have established that fossil records gathered across different continents show that animals sprung into existence suddenly and fully formed. There is no evidence of missing links. There are no records for elephants with half tusks or dogs with half tails. Further, in dating these fossil rocks, Dr Henry Morris has reliably shown that evolutionists use only those dating methods that will give them astronomically old proof that intelligence can emerge from non-intelligence, nor does it show that single-celled animals can lead to multi-celled animals. The embryo, for instance, does not evolve into a human. Rather, it comes packed with full genetic code at conception. More can be said about evolution, but I rest my case here. It is not a proven fact. It is not a scientific law. It is not a scientific theory that is repeatable and open to observation and testing like the GTR. It is only a scientific model to interpret the evidence in a certain way. Period. And though Odongo may not like it, there is merit to expose biology students to all this information and let them consider it for themselves and see where the evidence leads. They may have occasion to ponder over these things during their stay in high school, or perhaps much later in life. Lastly, theology and science are not at war with each other, as Odongo would have us believe. Rather, they are complementary ways of exploring the same reality. — The writer is a student at Luther Rice Seminary at Lithonia, Georgia. The views expressed are his. 5 Adaptation or mutation is not clear evolution BY OKAKA ALFRED email@example.com WAGA ODONGO presents Darwin’s theory in a way that portrays his understanding of the same as an absolute fact rather than a theory attempting to explain the origin of life and species. This is contrary to what the originator of the theory, Charles Robert Darwin, stated in his publication, On the Origin of Species. He even claims that evolution has been observed in modern times in bacteria in American universities. What has been observed are mutations and adaptations and not macro evolution, that is, one species evolving into a different distinct species. For instance, Escherichia coli has not evolved into any different species for more than 50,000 generations of culturing and studies. Let me point out a few weaknesses of the evolution theory. First, out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms. Second, the laws of probability are not in favour of the evolution theory. According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than one out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power. I just listed two, but I encourage Odongo, scientists, and fellow students to read and research further on these ideas. A real scientist questions ideas, events, theories, and occurrences. That is how these theories and all that we know about science came to be. Prefacing the evolution theory with the concept of special creation raises the learners’ intrigues. This motivates them to study and learn more about the origin of life and their existence. That is what real scientists do. — The writer is an applied biology student at the Technical University of Kenya. nclusive proof, evolution theory remains open to interrogation whole experience of the living, the dead, the dying, and non-life matter, all of which constitute the universe. I have been conducting a personal experiment to see whether being offline more will increase the meaningful reality of my experiential living, so I have reverted to an earlier acquired habit of reading the Daily Nation, always a day late, at 9.30am after feeding the cows… and a very precious time this is. Ahem… the reason you have been inundated with all this information is so that you can grasp the import of the evolution debate in my thinking. The Wag got me online before my second cup of tea! The term “theory” means a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. Theory in biology is a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, an assumption based on limited information or experience. As long as evolution remains within the scope of a theorem and not an absolute concrete, then it remains on the same footing as any other theory and is subject to interrogation. It cannot claim special treatment on the grounds of longevity or quantity of evidential data. You argue that “questioning evolution or introducing competing explanations for the origin of species without supporting facts makes us look foolish”. Hah! This here is the pièce de résistance! The fear of looking foolish is costing the world beyond monetary terms, though these are the only terms that are likely to induce hearing in a world made deaf by the sound of money. I wonder why modern medicine is spending trillions on the treatment of diseases rather than on their prevention. Medical science is ever busy trying not to look foolish, but perhaps solutions lie in thinking in a less linear manner, or maybe just less. Period. Modern-day medicine is still trying to grapple with the concept that man is more than matter, and that any approach to healing must be wholistic as well as holistic. The so-called mystic mumbo jumbo is indeed an integral aspect of healing (ask the ancient Egyptians, the true fathers of modern medicine) as it recognises that man is both physical and psychical. In its rigidness of thought, rationales and methodologies of enquiry, science runs the risk of seeing the universe merely as an amalgamation of atoms while being totally blind to the space outside the atom — the bigger picture, as it were. Heavy reliance on evidential knowledge is itself limiting as it depends on personal interpretation from which abstractions are made. Evidential knowledge, therefore, can be a well-laid snare to control reason, and the key word here is “control”. Applying the word “foolish” to any thought process that does not fall within the confines of controlled reason is an effective deterrent in the world of “intellectual beings”. Conformity or not thinking at all become safer options and definitely less painful than being assigned the foolish tag. While I celebrate science, I am careful to remain open to knowledge, employing different thought processes and rationales. PS: I also note with interest that science bandies some words around in very self-serving ways. For instance, the term “discover”, yet Solomon asserts that there is nothing new under the sun. There is a wrong assumption that the thing discovered has never existed in the consciousness of human beings, so it more often than not tends to be reduced to mere hubris based on this. Therefore, those who do not assign the same quantum of value or note to a discovery nor behave after a certain fashion of thought because of the said discovery are rendered mute, blind, deaf, and obsolete by the “discoverer”.
February 2nd 2014
February 4th 2014