With the truth, all given facts harmonize; but with what is false, the truth soon hits a wrong note

Aristototle

Premise 1: Matter is not eternal and chance cannot be a first cause.

The Law Of Cause And Effect is a universal law which specifically states:

1.Every single action in the universe produces a reaction no matter what.
2.Every single effect within our world, upon our earth has a cause and an original starting point.

If you search “Formation and Evolution of the Solar System” on Wikipedia it states: “The solar system began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the sun, while the rest flattened…of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small bodies formed.”

Wikipedia describes the Big Bang but it doesn’t provide the “cause ” any of the components within their description of the event.

1. The gravitational collapse
2. The giant molecular cloud
3. The collapsing mass

Science has mathematical theorems or observationally verifiable proofs for the causes of some of the most complex realities of the universe. For example gravity, photosynthesis, or the speed of light. Yet they haven’t any mathematical theorems or verifiable proofs for what caused any of the major components of evolutionary theory.

Verified Science provides the what, how, and why…Evolution only provides the what

The Law of Cause and Effect implies by extension that : That if there is matter and energy it had to originate from somewhere, and it had to be caused by something.

Any explanation of the Origin of the Universe has to meet the standards of The Law of Causation and Effect it cannot considered a scientific axiom and be exempt from the conditions of this law at the same time. In other words:

A. Anything that begins to exist has a cause

B. The Universe began to exist

C. Therefore the universe has to have a First Cause

Evolutionist fully realize that the law of cause and effect has to be adhered to in order for the theory to be seen as legitimate science but in the absence of being able to find a provable cause that can be observed, tested and verified they have developed theories within the theory.

What about Chance as the cause?

In the absence of a scientifically verifiable “Cause Agent” for the Big Bang modern science has defaulted to “chance” as the primary cause of the Big Bang and the commencement of evolution.

Evolutionary biology since Darwin has seen a dramatic entrenchment and elaboration of the role of chance in evolution. It is nearly impossible to discuss contemporary evolutionary theory in any depth at all without making reference to at least some concept of “chance” or “randomness.”

Grant Ramsey and Charles H. Pence, University Press Scholarship Online

Since most people do not closely examine what the words chance and cause really mean scientist have felt free to use the term chance as a vague, unprovable, fill in the blank cause agent for the formation of the universe and evolution on earth. Nobel Prize winning Physiologist Gerald Wald provides a typical pseudo-scientific description of the role of chance in evolution this way:

“One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. Given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable actually certain.”

The two reasons evolutionist choose chance to be “the cause of the universe” are:

1. Science declares every effect has to have a cause, the cause of the Big Bang has not been able to be scientifically proven so unprovable “chance” has been accepted and promoted as the cause.
2. Chance as a cause also provides a stop gap answer to the question “Why if all the other planets in the universe formed at the same time, from the same giant molecular cloud and mass hasn’t life formed on them as well ? Is it because there was No Chance?

The three reasons chance cannot be the “cause of the universe” are:

1. Chance is neither a force or object which a cause has to be

chance
1 of 2 noun
ˈchan(t)s 


1
a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause

Merriam Webster Dictionary

If chance is defined as something without an observable cause how can “chance” be a cause? Chance means to happen by luck or fortune. It doesn’t have any scientific standing to be declared the cause of anything. It is not substantive matter, energy, or a viable force therefore it could never be the definite cause of anything.

When scientists attribute instrumental power to chance—they have left the domain of reason, they have left the domain of science; they have turned to pulling rabbits out of hats, they have turned to fantasy. All scientific investigation becomes chaotic and absurd, because it can’t really yield what it should yield, because they won’t allow it to.

John MacArthur; Creation Believe It or Not

2. Chance as a causal force cannot be measured, tested or quantified (chance+nothing=everything)

ver·i·fy

/ˈverəˌfī/ verb

make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified.

“his conclusions have been verified by later experiments”

Oxford Dictionary

Chance by definition is just a description of unpredictability it cannot be a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition as the definition of “cause” states. Closer examination of the word chance reveals that it is not a thing, but describes something else. A cause has to be either a force (energy) or matter of which chance is neither. Since chance is not a force or matter it can’t be quantified, measured or tested scientifically.

With the failure of these many efforts, science has been left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living organisms which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create mythology of it’s own that somehow something they cannot prove can take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past

Loren Eisley; Anthropologist, The Immense Journey p. 199

There can be no doubt that after a century of intensive efforts biologists have failed to validate it in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.

Michael Denton; Theory In Crisis, PhD Biochemistry, Senior Fellow Discovery Institute for Science and Culture

3. The odds against complex life forming randomly by chance are too astronomical

An undifferentiated external force (Big Bang) is simply too blunt an instrument to accomplish such a task. Energy might scatter parts around randomly. Energy might sweep parts into an orderly structure such as a vortex or funnel cloud. But energy alone will not assemble a group of parts into a highly differentiated or functionally specified system such as an airplane or cell

Stephen C. Meyer; Ph.D Science Cambridge University; Signature of A Cell p. 257

The chance of obtaining a single functioning protein by chance is comparable to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cubes simultaneously

Sir Fred Hoyle; Formulated the theory of Stellar Nucleosysynthesis

Many of thousand plus scientist who have signed the Dissent From Darwin List that are non-creationist are demanding a better explanation than unverifiable “Chance” as the cause of life on Earth

Nothing can come from nothing. If something came from nothing then the nothing has the property of being able to produce something and so the “nothing” is something, a “thing” that can produce what we have today… We need to discover, scientifically, the facts. To say before the “big bang” there was nothing is nonsense. Before the “big bang” (whatever that was) there was something that gave rise to the “big bang” and we are ignorant of what that was.

We need a theory of what gave rise to what we call “the Big Bang”, one that doesn’t assume nothing produced something.

Peter LePort, Surgeon, Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors

Discussion Question: After careful examination of what “chance” is by definition should scientist teach that it is the scientifically verifiable cause of the “Big Bang” and the emergence of life on Earth?

Premise 2: Diversity at the systems level of nature point to a designer and organizer

The grand theory of evolution posits that matter and energy alone have given rise to all things including biological systems. If true, then the theory must attribute the existence of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy without reference to an intelligent or conscious source.

The different statistical models over the years have been gradually homing in on a figure of 8.7 million total species. Currently, 1.64 million have been named, so that’s 81 per cent left to find (the 86 per cent figure was based on 2011 totals). This only covers eukaryotes (animals, plants and fungi) though. A 2016 study estimated that bacteria could add almost another trillion species.

sciencefocus.com

There are 8 super systems of taxonomy that include countless biologically and genetically distinct subsystems to numerous to list. Below is a basic taxonomical chart that is by no means comprehensive:

Evolution demands that all of this systematic biodiversity originated randomly by chance, and that all species are evolutionary descendants of each other. Yet there are so many distinct classes, orders, genus, and species that cannot be reconciled as ancestors genetically.

So many in fact, that large global databases have to be organized just to categorize them all based on their genetic diversity:

Names Of International Taxonomic Information Organizations and Systems

International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses

International Institute for Species Exploration

International Botanical Congress

All Species Foundation

World Register of Marine Species

Global Biodiversity Information Facility

Barcode of Life Data System

Integrated Taxonomic Information System

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

World Register of Marine Species

The earth’s biodiversity is so vast that International Taxonomical Organizations (See Chart B) and science as a whole have not been able to keep up with classifying species. Biologist believe that 86 percent of the worlds species are still waiting to be found and classified.

It is a remarkable testament to humanity’s narcissism that we know the number of books in the US Library of Congress on 1 February 2011 was 22,194,656, but cannot tell you – to within an order of magnitude – how many distinct species of plants and animals we share our world with

Lord Robert May: Royal Society President PLOS Biology

Biologist and Taxonomist believe there are still over 7 million more species that need to be classified according to genetic similarities. That means the remaining 7 million will be:

1. Genetically distinct from each other
2. Have different physical and morphological attributes from each other
3. All be reproductively isolated
4. Have different communal behaviors and instincts

Premise 3: Information….

Evolutionist believe that all of this beauty, design, order and genetic diversity is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations

ran·dom
/ˈrandəm/
adjective

1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

The words random and complexity are contradictions in terms. The main tenets of Information Theory or The Laws of Information are:

1. Information and intelligence does not arise randomly but must have an agent
2. Irreducibly complex design does not arise randomly but must have an designer

Each of the 8.7 million known species have been catalogued according to strict taxonomic guidelines that include biological and behavioral traits such as hive building by bees, or ant slavery etc., migration, hibernation all of which are determined and controlled by each species distinct and incredibly comprehensive coded DNA.

The sheer numbers of species discovered and still undiscovered, all of which are genetically unrelated demonstrate beauty, imagination, and creative capacity that boggles even the most atheistic and scientific minds.

We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully “designed” to have come into existence by chance

Richard Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker

Discussion Question: Can random processes in nature account for the complexity of genome diversity and systems complexity found in nature?

Back To Cube 4