The View From 1776

“Understanding” Creation - Round Two

Further discussion about what the meaning of is is.

———————
Another emailer wrote:

“I still find it impossible to imagine infinite, finite and eternity or the beginnings as a “singularity”.

“I also can’t imagine a god who would or should care about 6 billion human beings who are either unique in the universe or have come to be on perhaps an infinite number of similar planets.”

My reply:

I think that’s the point.  There are realms of being or non-being that we simply cannot imagine or sense.  The Book of Genesis is a symbolic effort to put this profound intuition into human words.

The great weakness of Comtean Positivism (i.e., that the only reality is what we can sense) is that the human body can sense so very few of the many varieties of force fields and energy waves (quantum energy packets) that we know of indirectly via things like cyclotrons, electron, and X-ray microscopes.  The human senses can’t detect X-rays, for example, though we will experience the deteriorating effect later on if we endure too much of it.  In the case of cyclotrons, electron microscopes, and X-ray microscopes, we never “see” things, but get data responses from the impact of various kinds of energy with the molecular or sub-atomic structure of materials.  These data responses must then be interpreted with the vast computing power that only in recent years has become available.

Add to this the fact that the human body never directly senses anything.  Receptor nerves react to external stimuli, triggering a chemical response that travels along one or more nerve paths, thence to the brain, where the chemical reaction must connect to the proper combination of ganglia before we can see, hear, taste, smell, or feel anything.  As many people have noted, sensory perceptions are often very different from person to person.  What an insane person hears or sees may not exist from the standpoint of a sane person.  Reliance upon the supposedly scientific approach of Comtean Positivism is rather like asking a blind man to perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer.

Poor Charles Darwin, for example, thought in his ignorance (and obsessive desire to find something, anything to disprove what he called the “damnable doctrine of Christianity”) that life began spontaneously from inert chemicals to form so-called simple, single-cell life forms, from which every other living thing evolved purely by random chance, over unimaginable billions of years. 

Apart from the fact that the fossil record completely contradicts his predictions (the basic vertebrate phyla and genera sprang into existence, fully differentiated at one time in the Cambrian period roughly 600 million years ago, with no connecting evolution from the invertebrate forms found in earlier fossils), microbiologists have determined that, even at the level of irreducible simplicity, single-cell life is is extraordinarily complex.  Knowing this has only in recent years become possible, with the advent of X-ray microscopes and the necessary computing power.

What Darwin in his obsessive and benighted ignorance presumed to be just a fluid-filled membrane with a nucleus is, in fact, a bundle of interdependent systems for capturing food, moving it within the cell to the digestive system, then for moving toxic chemical waste from the digestive system, and thence dumping the waste out of the cell.  Each of those individual systems within the cell requires a dozen to as many as a couple of hundred complex organic chemicals not found free-form in nature. 

Without any one of these complicated sub-systems, a supposedly simple, single-cell creature would die almost immediately.  Ergo, evolution over billions of years, as Darwin postulated it, to evolve each of these systems via random chance is now known to be completely impossible.  Every single one of these sub-systems had to be in existence simultaneously and operating effectively.  Darwinian evolutionary theory thus crumbles to dust before it can even take to the theoretical evolutionary road. 

Remember that Darwinian evolution is not just the random development of characteristics within a species via natural selection.  It sinks or swims on the theory that every living plant and animal started from the spontaneous generation of life from inert chemicals into a supposedly simple, single-cell thing.  As cutting-edge scientific research in microbiology now makes clear, anyone teaching that Darwinian evolution is scientific fact is guilty of criminal ignorance, if not willful stupidity.

The only presently available explanation is intelligent design, i.e., that something (shall we say God?) brought all of these things into existence in their fully developed complexity ab initio.  Whatever changes we have seen since then in the development of similar species is no more than what plant and animal breeders hundreds of years before 1859 could have told Mr. Darwin.

With regard to why liberal-socialists insist upon keeping the latest scientific research from students and continuing to inculcate the religious dogma of Darwinian evolution, see Ohio Subjects Darwinian Dogma to Scientific Scrutiny.

As for whether God can care for and shepherd each individual creature within our realm of Creation, I refer you to the opening sentence above.  Remember that the word care is only a human attempt at approximating a God of literally unknowable nature Who exists outside of, before, and after the Creation that we experience as being itself.  Everything in our cosmos is simultaneously part of God, yet different from God.  Symbolically this was expressed by the Bible’s account of God speaking to Moses from the bush in the desert that was burning, yet not being consumed by the flames.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/21 at 11:55 PM
  1. An oldie but a goodie:

    When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything.
    -- G.K. Chesterton
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/22  at  10:55 AM
  2. I don't think that random chance has alot to do with Darwin's theory of evolution - except at "the beginning." That's where he cannot overcome Christianity.

    I think that evolution is possible but by design. For instance, you can build a robot that explores planets and collects information, and has programs, or a program, in conjunction with others, that utilize symbolic logic to represent "thoughts" in mathematical form to create more complicated responses to data input. Anyone see Honda's ASIMO on tv dancing and "talking" to people lately?

    Check out asimo.honda.com to see what I'm talking about.

    In Stephen Spielberg's A.I. you get the illustration from that perspective. Here's George MacDonald: "So long as we have nothing to say to God, nothing to do with Him, save in the sunshine of the mind when we feel Him near us, we are poor creatures, willed upon, not willing.. And how in such a condition do we generally act? Do we sit mourning over the loss of feeling? Or worse, make frantic efforts to try to rouse them?"

    You can still agree that Comtean Positivism is like asking a blind man to perform brain surgery with a sledge hammer and see that Darwin stumbled on to something even though his view meant that men such as himself were like those blindmen given sledgehammers to perform surgery. I guess in his case, he missed the brain and the head entirely and hit on the floor making an echo that had a bit of a ring of truth to it.

    We are souls, not bodies. The only question that I have is whether Providence see us keep our carnal representations for eternity. Notice I said, representation.

    Remember, Mr. Brewton said himself that "the human body never directly senses anything. Receptor nerves react to external stimuli..."

    Our disagreement may merely be semantical, or not present at all. Complicated systems can be formed from less complicated systems, it happens all the time. The theory of evolution, without the materialistic faith, just applies this natural phenomena to biology. But as the hammer becomes more powerful, or if it is to be used to build rather than to destroy, the building must be dedicated to our ultimate Architect.

    "Sometimes it is hard not to say 'God forgive God.' Sometimes it is hard to say so much. But if our faith is true, He didn't. He crucified Him." - C.S. Lewis
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/22  at  08:05 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.