Читать книгу Untold Evidence of God - Andre Dellerba - Страница 4

Chapter 2 – The Designer, Creator OR “Lucky” Chaos?

Is there such a thing as random or chaos? Is random like throwing dice and chaos like breaking glass? Both are governed by forces that are initiated by “someone” (the initiator). Also someone had to create what “force is” and “how it” operates in the first place (Designer, Creator). If this isn’t established then there is no environment through which an initiator can initiate. As in the example of the dice, the initiator throws a dice within an environment which is designed. By understanding the laws that were designed and established in that environment, we can control the dice there in. This will result in us being able to determine where, how and when the dice will land every time; therefore it is no longer random. We know! The number on the dice can be calculated by controlling the starting position; frictional forces of the surface and the dice; the speed and angle of release, travel and rotation in the air and ground; gravity and weight; the temperature and wind; shape of the dice, etc. So what are we saying then? There is no such thing as random, except for a lack of understanding on our part. Lack of understanding of the environment that the Designer created, and how the Initiator (sometimes the Designer, the Environment itself, or someone else) uses that environment.

What about the Theory of Evolution?

It takes far more faith to believe this theory than to believe it was created by the Creator. I’m not just saying this because of a religious persuasion but based on hard science.

The idea that people developed from bacteria/cell billions of years ago - from sludge, to bacteria, to fish, to an ape, to a human may sound logical to some but it sounds crazy to others (literally moving from the goo through the zoo to you). To those that say it is logical – let’s play it out. What would happen if I stood up on the street corner and proclaimed that the sludge under my shoe would develop over millions of years into a person like you - would you believe me or laugh at me? What would happen if I showed my hypothesis via a drawing of the development over time - would that change anything? What would happen if I demonstrated that humans can evolve based on the environment e.g. in colder climates getting thicker and more hair - Would that support my initial theory or would that be easily explained away? What would happen if I had some title behind my name that people said made me smarter than you? If I made it more complex by adding a scientific maze of assumptions, would you surrender and default to believing me because it is too complex to cut through yourself?

That’s the Theory of Evolution by Darwin “the Origin of Species.” It is based on the Theory of Natural Selection driving progressive unintelligent change and development from a single cell to all the species we have today, with no intelligent intervention. Instead of the similarity of physical features pointing to a common Designer, Darwin implied that it was a result of a common starting point. He had very little to say on how the cell started. He never addressed how life started in the cell or how living matter could come from non-living matter (elements and molecules). He never addressed how the environment was established in which the change happened. His primary focus was on the assumption of evolving, that is, comparing species that evolve within species to - one specie evolving into completely different species.

What about “Punctuated Equilibrium”? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory in evolution that states that most sexually reproducing organisms (genetic diversity of offspring) will show little to no change during history. Punctuated Equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the Theory of Phyletic Gradualism, which “hypothesizes” that most evolution occurs uniformly and gradually over time. Both theories are based on the hypothesis that one changes instantly and the other over time. Again no proof for change of one specie into another. If this was the case, based on these hypotheses, we would have many half-ape half-humans today.

Consider “Genetic Algorithm” - The progression from a specific state (given state) to a better state? The progression is based on looking at the individual members called “candidate solutions” evaluating their fitness and sustainability in that environment (excludes millions of factors) and then taking some members, mutating them (not saying what makes them change but actually changing their coding to produce a better outcome) and then hypothesizing what the end of the generation will look like. This becomes the start of the next generation and a so-called “fact” and so on until the population arrives at the better solution (fabricating the outcome on assumptions).

Hard science is fact based and can be proven and soft science is theory/assumptions, like Evolution. There is no foundation, no natural progression of one specie to the next (species become extinct but do not evolve to another specie), no evidence of evolution in transition, no evidence of the sustainability of evolution, it has no starting point and no end point – basically it is a “Theory of Unintelligent Chaos” which is not and cannot be sustained by hard science.

The theory is only solid if it has a solid foundation. Adversely, a weak foundation results in a weak theory, e.g. the foundation of Evolution is less than weak - From the proposed development of the cell to the mutation through natural selection. Even in Mathematics if we don’t have either a solid starting point or an end point as a reference, we can pretty much make up what we want and it doesn’t prove anything. In the case of the Theory of Evolution there is neither a starting nor an end point.

Hard Science disproved the Theory of Evolution more than 30 years ago yet it is still being taught in schools as a scientific fact. Why? Because the Theory of Evolution has become “the religion” of the 20^th Century to give people like me “an excuse” to side step what hard science points to - the Creator, the Designer. Questioning the Theory of Evolution from a scientific basis undoubtedly causes scientists to be labeled as religious fundamentalists. This may be a "scare tactic" or a method of diversion to sustain the theory and avoid scrutiny. Why? Because the Theory of Evolution uses the excuse “Religious Fundamentalist” to hide the fact that they themselves are “Religious Fundamentalists” pushing an incredible high faith; supposedly under the banner of science.

Some say it isn’t a religion - But it is, religion is “seeking after god”, and their god(s) is self. It reminds me of the Nazi’s and Communist brainwashing in the education system – there is no difference. Their foundation was exactly the same as educators of “Theory of Evolution”– to prove there is “NO” Designer. Just like communism, the Theory of Evolution too will collapse as people take life and hard science seriously.