Understanding the Battlefield Landscape
This reflection is a continuation of Part 7 related to evolutionary philosophy. Allow me to make several additional observations in reference to the so-called prehistoric soup I mentioned in my earlier reflection. No one knows where the soup was located or whether there were several places in which these spontaneous reproductive processes took place. We are not told if the chemicals that produced the first unicellular organisms have continued to this day, or if this phenomenon was a one time event, never to be repeated in the history of this planet. We don’t know how often the reproduction of new life machines was in operation. Also, no one has stated if the chemicals became extinct or if the scientists have no clue about what they are talking about. It is my contention that for the philosophy of evolution to make any sense at all, the little prehistoric soup organisms must have been active for millions upon millions of years, until the dumb unicellular amoebas could figure out how to duplicate and reproduce.
The soup had to be cooking for a long time because most unicellular bacteria do not live more than a few minutes or hours at best. If it took millions of years for these microscopic life forms to reproduce, that means they must have had the longest life spans imaginable. If they lived for millions of years, we should have millions upon millions of those critters still roaming the countryside and evolving. Unfortunately, it appears that once the initial bowl of soup was exhausted, the earth did not cook up any more bacteria friendly soup. So, either the first bacteria survived for millions of years, or the soup continued producing the same type of microbe over and over again for millions of years. If the new life forms could only survive for hours, how did they figure out they needed to start reproducing before they ran out of soup? I am making fun of this situation because the theory's dependance on time, without explaining the complexity required for a change in the genome, is laughable. It’s an irrational theory that uses time as an excuse to gloss over the unsurmountable gap the exist between the unicellular life forms and their more complex successors. The prehistoric soup could have produced unicellular living organisms for gazillion of years, but if those organisms died within a few hours after jumping into life, even using evolution’s own timeline, the new life forms will die before any genetic changes could become hereditary. Evolution philosophy is a house of cards, and after more than 150 years of deception and illusion, the crash will be phenomenal.
If each microbe did not survive for the necessary millions of years, in order to develop a reproductive system, when and how did these unicellular creatures incorporate the new DNA codes that altered their original formation? How was the new DNA language written, and how did these "living" creatures developed the capacity to write encoded biological language? Please understand that there is not one single biologist who has addressed the DNA barrier in any of their writings. In addition to that, these biologists claim that this process was without purpose and unguided. Nobody knew what was happening or why it was happening, and yet it was happening as if someone had designed it. Or, as Richard Dawkins have said before, evolution gives the “illusion” of design. (https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/biologist-dawkins-discusses-illusion-of-design-at-stephens/.) He cannot deny the design, but he, disingenuously, uses the word "illusion" to create confusion. Let me share three additional reasons I believe philosophical evolution is not a viable system.
First, there is no evidence anywhere that non-life can produce life. There is nothing on this earth right now, and there has never been any evidence or discovery that an inanimate object can became alive on its own. Scientists have been able to use existing chemicals and materials to produce bacteria and viruses, but that’s a far cry from claiming that life arose from non-life. Even with the lab created viruses, the scientist is a designer who intentionally worked to develop the virus from existing life forms. The logical conclusion is that an intelligent, purposeful, and living mind, God, must have created all life on earth. The same scientists that claim that non-life can produce life would deny Jesus's resurrection. If, as they claim, life can come from non-life, then, they should be supporting the possibility that Jesus came back from non-life to life. Only the Christian is consistent on this subject. We believe God created life on earth and that God raised Jesus from the dead, because He is the source of life.
Second, self-awareness cannot come from unconsciousness. On this earth, so far as we can tell, there are no creatures, other than humanity, that have the capacity to be self-aware. Self-awareness means that I know who I am, I know who others are, and I know I am not them and they are not me. No other animal has the capacity to make this distinction. The rest of the animal kingdom functions on instinctive impulse that are hard wired into their creation. Those instinctive impulses could not have arisen on their own. They must have been designed with a specific purpose to allow all the species to have a survival mechanism, but not a self-aware consciousness.
Third, the capacity to know the difference between good and evil is limited to the human race. No other living creature has any empathy for the lives, suffering, or needs of other living creatures. To know the difference between good and evil requires a spiritual element we call a conscience or a soul. The conscience is a spiritual element that could not have developed from matter or chemical reactions. The world, as we know it today, is a mirror of the world as it has always been. The biology and chemistry in this world have the same processes that have always existed, and there is nothing in the present world that points to a consciousness in the material world. It is simply not there.
There is absolutely nothing in biology, chemistry, or in the animal kingdom, that point us to the conscious purposeful existence. No other creature, besides humanity, has any concept of right and wrong or good and evil. The animal kingdom does not possess any sense of “ought-ness." The very idea of having a sense of duty is alien to the rest of creation. Only humanity can experience guilt and shame for evil acts judged by a moral code that is higher than the people themselves. And only the human creature experiences joy and satisfaction for good behavior.
How does any animal on this earth know anything about purpose? Has anyone discovered any creature, other than man, that can act with self-aware intentions? The lion has a design and purpose. The lion will always function according to his design and purpose, but the lion did not design himself and he is not self-aware of his own purpose. Unlike humans who know they have a design and purpose, the lion is unaware of who he is or why he is the way he is. Imagine the energy that a biologist must spend to engage in the intellectual gymnastics necessary to deny the obvious: that humans have self-awareness to the purpose for their existence. To deny that humans have purpose requires the total suspension of reality, for to deny that we have purpose is, itself, a purposeful statement.
No one has ever claimed that a lion roared like a bull or change his lifestyle to become a vegan. As far as I can tell, I have not heard anyone suggest that some lions prefer their steaks well-done while others prefer them bloody and raw. My point here is not to be funny or dismissive. My point is that humanity's self-awareness of its of design, consciousness and purpose is absolutely essential for the knowledge of good and evil, and humans are the only living creatures that can make such distinctions. It should not be controversial to say that the knowledge of good and evil, with all the implications that it entails, is limited to the human species. And yet, many scientists, who themselves are fully aware of their purpose, insist that humanity does not have purpose or freewill. It is, really, a sight to behold.
The gaps between the transition from non-life to life, from unconsciousness to self-awareness, from purposeless to purpose, and from conscienceless to conscience, that includes the knowledge of good and evil and the inherent capacity for freedom of the will, cannot be explained, or explained away, as the result of a prehistoric soup that, conveniently, no longer exists and cannot be duplicated. The very idea that every evolutionary argument depends on ignorance of the present, points to a deficient philosophy. How does it depend on the ignorance of the present? Well, the biological close system we call earth, has gone through millions of changes through the centuries, but the fundamental laws of nature have not changed. Therefore, we should be able to extrapolate about the past using the present as our guide. If our present does not have any indicators to support our theories, philosophical presuppositions, and scientific assumptions, then, we have to adjust our proposals. If nothing in the present resembles the infamous prehistoric soup that produced life, consciousness, self-awareness, and purpose from the material world, then, in all likelihood the prehistoric soup did not exist and cannot be used to explain the emergence of life on this planet.
The devil has shaped the spiritual battlefield landscape with such precision that humans, who are the only creatures with the capacity to know God, have abandoned the truth revealed through nature and have embrace the lies that come from hell. When the Church chooses to fight according to the world’s philosophical premises, the Church loses the fight. The devil’s weapons are based on deception and lies, while our weapons are based on the truth of God’s revelation. While we cannot be ignorant to the world around us, we cannot fight a spiritual war with material weapons.
Dr. David Belinski, the world renowned mathematician, stated the following: “Darwinism has become far more than a narrow and not very interesting nineteenth-century theory of speciation; it is a way of thought, an attitude, and so an ideology. As political correctness is the reigning ideology of social and political life, so Darwinism is the reigning ideology of scientific life.” (Berlinski, David. The Deniable Darwin (p. 14). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.) According to Berlinski, Darwinism or evolutionary philosophy is an ideology and nothing more. Therefore, it should not be treated as genuine science. At best, evolutionary philosophy is the ideological framework upon which atheism rests. (NEXT: the abortion philosophy)