Materialism & Evolution False by Logic, Reason, & Limitations of Scientific Method
From time to time I see a new way to argue an old issue. A friend of the ministry recently sent an argument exposing the problems in Darwinism that I thought I would share: There are limitations for the scientific method in establishing "tests for truth". We can, however, test the evolution/materialism model very simply.
1. Darwinian change-in-kind has never been observed as a unique event, or a common experience in the recorded history of mankind. Evolutionists admit that such a change can never be observed or re-created, but requires millions of years (at least). Hence, the "hypothesis" of evolution is NON-TESTABLE. (Unfalsifiable - Popper)
2. Materialism (evolution) assumes that all events in the universe can be explained by natural cause/effects. But this cannot be proven to be true by scientific methodology, because of the constraints of time and space. Hence, the assumption is UNPROVEN, and cannot be scientifically defended. (Kant)
3. Materialism/evolution declares that all events in the universe are determined and controlled by natural forces. The possibility of an un-caused-cause is impossible in the Materialism paradigm. As humans we experience FREE WILL, i.e. we can begin a chain of cause/effect at will. Our obvious experience as a sentient conscious being in the universe is that we have free will and can become at anytime of our choosing an un-caused-cause. Hence Materialism is proved to be false.
=== Materialism is False, and Evolution untestable. Scientific Method cannot contradict these facts. Therefore I conclude that Evolution is not the necessary (by default) explanation for life in the universe. ===
Three simple steps. I like it.
L.L. (“Don”) Vienot, Jr Midwest Christian Outreach
Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous that the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.
J. Gresham Machen, cited in "Family Policy, Vol. 11, No.5, p.7-8.
There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. Booker T. Washington
The leaders of the NEA have an agenda. They are pro-choice on abortion and anti-choice on school selection. They oppose merit pay and the competency testing of teachers. They are actively pro-homosexual and actively anti-prayer in schools. They value equality over excellence and have a condom orientation toward morality. They generally view parents as inadequate. They are for big government and higher taxes. They are Democrats.
Soliciting the support of this powerful trade union in a speech to their leadership in 1991, Bill Clinton said, “If I become president, you’ll be my partners. I won’t forget who brought me to the White House.” ...
While Johnny and Jill may not be learning how to read, they are learning that teachers are underpaid, God is irrelevant, big business is ruining the environment, rewards should be based on need rather than performance, bisexual individuals are under the command of unstable genes, the Alamo was a great Mexican victory, society rather than the individual is responsible for crime, teachers are quite underpaid, competition is destructive, the American Constitution was written by racists, boys and girls are exactly the same except for unimportant differences, rich people enjoy stomping on poor people, Christopher Columbus infected the natives with syphilis, one person’s opinion is as good as any other, the right to kill an unborn child is sacred, teachers are grossly underpaid, sex between consenting children is inevitable, and the only hope of the world is for workers everywhere to unite.
Linda Bowles, “Clinton’s honoring his deal with teachers,” Creator’s Syndicate, 3/25/96.
Most of those Americans now living below the official poverty line have possessions once considered part of a middle class standard of living, just a generation or so ago. As of 2001, three-quarters of Americans with incomes below the official poverty level had air-conditioning (which only one-third of all Americans had in 1971), 97 percent had color television (which fewer than half of all Americans had in 1971), 73 percent owned a microwave oven (which fewer than one percent of all Americans had in 1971), and 98 percent of ‘the poor’ had either a videocassette recorder or a DVD player (which no one had in 1971). In addition, 72 percent of "the poor" owned a motor vehicle.
None of this has done much to change the rhetoric of the intelligentsia, however much it may reflect major changes in the standard of living of Americans in the lower income brackets. Professor Peter Corning, for example, has called the American economy "an ever-spreading wasteland of poverty" and said that "close to one-quarter of our population" are "struggling to meet their basic needs." Similarly, Professor Andrew Hacker declared that "a rising proportion of children are growing up in homes without the means even for basic necessities."
Undefined terms like "basic necessities" and arbitrarily defined terms like "poverty" allow such rhetoric to flourish, independently of documented facts about rising living standards in the lower income brackets. While such alarmist rhetoric abounds, specifics are conspicuous by their absence. At one time, poverty meant that people were hungry or couldn’t afford adequate clothing to protect themselves against the elements. Today it means whatever those who define the official poverty level want it to mean, so that says that X percent of the American population live in poverty is to say that they meet some ultimately arbitrary definition, which could be set higher or lower, causing half as many or twice as many to be called "poor." Moreover, the income statistics so often cited tell us very little about the actual standard of living among people who receive the majority of their economic resources over and above whatever incomes they may be earning.
The impression you get from some girls today is that they start out as soon as they are able, and they chase the boys until finally they run one down and marry him. And then we wonder why those marriages don’t work out. I risk being thought archaic for saying this, but I believe it is still the prerogative of the man to do the chasing. The man is always the deliverer, and the woman is the receiver. God made them that way. And that’s why He says to the man, "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph. 5:25). He didn’t turn that around and instruct the wife to love the husband. Somebody asks, "Well, isn’t she supposed to?" Of course she is, but she’s a responder. She is to respond to him. If he loves her, then she will love him. If he treats her harshly and cruelly, she will become cold and indifferent, and love will die. In the majority of cases - and over the years I have counseled literally hundreds of cases that have to do with marriage problems - the man is to blame. You see, he is the one who is responsible because he is to be the leader. J. Vernon McGee, “Ruth” (Thru The Bible Commentary Series), p.85
Romantic love has no elasticity to it. It can never be stretched; it simply shatters. Mature love, the kind demanded of a good marriage, must stretch, as the sinful human condition is such that all of us bear conflicting emotions. … Any mature, spiritually sensitive view of marriage must be built on the foundation of mature love rather than romanticism. Gary Thomas, Sacred Marriage, p.15, 16
The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. Ronald Reagan
Without some sense of the tragedy of the human condition, it is all too easy to consider anything that goes wrong as being somebody’s fault.
It is common for intellectuals to act as if their special kind of knowledge of generalities can and should substitute for, and override, the mundane specific knowledge of others. This emphasis on the special knowledge of intellectuals often leads to the dismissing of mundane, first-hand knowledge as "prejudices" or "stereotypes," in favor of abstract beliefs common among the intelligentsia, who may have little or no first-hand knowledge as individuals, organizations, or concrete circumstances involved. Moreover, such attitudes are not only disseminated far beyond the ranks of the intelligentsia, they have become the basis of policies, laws, and judicial decisions.
Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, P.22
When a society establishes criminal-by-right and looters-by-law - men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims - then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive half-property, half-loot.
Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: "Account overdrawn."
When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.Do not expect them to stay moral land lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral.Do not expect them to produce when production is punished and looting rewarded.Do not ask, "Who is destroying the world?"You are.
Francisco d’Anconia, in “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand
Here’s a hand to the boy who has courage To do what he knows to be right; When he falls in the way of temptation, He has a hard battle to fight. Who strives against self and his comrades Will find a most powerful foe. All honor to him if he conquers. A cheer for the boy who says “No!”
There’s many a battle fought daily The world knows nothing about; There’s many a brave little soldier Whose strength puts a legion to rout. And he who fights sin singlehanded Is more of a hero, I say, Than he who leads soldiers in battle And conquers by arms in the fray.
Be steadfast, my boy, when you’re tempted, To do what you know to be right. Stand firm by the colors of manhood, And you will o’ercome in the fight. “The right,” be your battle cry ever In waging the warfare of life, And God, who knows who are the heroes, Will give you strength for the strife.
The foundation of a good marriage is always built upon the trust we have in our partner and the vows we made. We must be convinced of the validity and necessity of both. The vows may be brief and simple, but they are extremely profound. They are often the only vows we will ever make. Perhaps that is why they can be so frightening in today’s “liberated” society. We must keep our vow to love and honor one another, even after we discover the cost. Mike Mason says, “The saying of them [marriage vows] requires about thirty seconds. But keeping them is the work of a lifetime.”
Hope MacDonald, “The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values,” p.30
A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos, crime, violence, unrest, disorder...that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Family and Nation,” p.147
Is opposition to same-gender marriage actually "homophobic"? The definition of phobia is fairly straightforward and simple:
"...usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational."
Of all the people I know and with whom I have spoken, including homosexuals, "fear" of homosexuals - much less "irrational" "fear" - simply is not present. But many people are often cowed by the accusation; because like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar-Baby, the more they fight to defend themselves against name-calling, the more stuck they become.
I have wondered: Are those who support abortion, same-gender marriage, and other "Progressive" social issues "moralophobic?" That is, do they have an "irrational" "fear" of morals, or would using that term just be name-calling instead of sound, reasoned debate as well? I have come to two conclusions on this question. First, it would be name-calling and, as tempting as it may be to me, it comes across as a playground squabble ending with ‘So is your mother!’ The accusation that Progressives and Liberals are moralophobic lacks reasoned debate land comment on the issues at hand. Second, it is actually not true. They don’t have an "irrational" "fear" of the morals which have been the fabric of our nation since its inception - the ones contained in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Rather, they have a rational fear and hatred of those morals. They are not opposed to morality per se, but they are working to change morals to accommodated the way they desire to live rather than how God says we ought to live. Fear of condemnation can be assuaged - if not eliminated altogether - by making the change. It is being accomplished a little at a time.
The big push now is to normalize same-gender, sexual relationships. The line from married to non-married sexual relations had been shifted a few decades ago. Not that unmarried sex is more acceptable, there is just a small shift in cultural thinking to embrace same-gender, sexual relationships. "How can you deny someone sexual satisfaction solely because they are attracted to others of the same gender?" we are asked. The highest moral value in this area today: Personal Satisfaction. Legitimizing same-gender sex happens simply by moving the marital requirements one (albeit huge) step to include these homosexual relationships. But the, why not include polygamy or eliminate the age of consent and include children in the mix? Well, that would absolutely be met with near-complete cultural rejection ... right now. However, by moving the boundaries one-step-at-a-time, it is easier to change morals. The new morality becomes, "How could you deny the right of two people who love each other 'the right' to marry." Once that is accepted, it then becomes immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. The next part of the process is to create peer pressure to conform to the new morality.
L.L. (Don) Veinot, Jr. & Dr. Jerry Buckner “Moralophobic” Midwest Christian Outreach Journal, Vol. 19 No.2
What many intellectuals seem not to understand is that even being the world’s leading authority on a particular subject, such as admiralty law or Mayan civilization, does not confer even minimal competence on other subjects, such as antitrust law, environmental issues or foreign policy. As British writer Lowes Dickinson said of scientists, "beside being prejudiced, they suppose that the fact that they are men of science gives their prejudices value.”
The concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to the truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means "putting up with error" - not "being accepting of all views." We don't tolerate what we enjoy or approve of - like chocolate or Bach's music. By definition, what we tolerate is what we disapprove of or what we believe to be false and erroneous. Furthermore, tolerance presupposes an adequate grasp of what another person believes - as well as a knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of such belief. Actually, if disagreement didn't exist, then tolerance would be unnecessary. It is because real differences exist between people that tolerance becomes necessary and virtuous.
Paul Copan, "Who Are You to Judge Others?" (article in the Areopagus Journal, July 2001)
After examining the sexual practices of more than 80 primitive and more advanced societies, [Professor J.D.] Unwin concluded that sexually permissive behavior led to less cultural energy, less creativity, less individualism, less mental development, and less cultural progress in general. Primitive societies with the greatest sexual freedom had made the least cultural advances. Those with stricter limitations had made the greatest progress. Among civilized societies, the same rule held. Those with restrictive sexual codes had made the greatest cultural strides, and when more permissive sexual standards appeared, cultural decline set in. Unwin said there was no known instance of a society that retained as high a cultural level after relatively relaxed sexual standards replaced more rigorous ones (although he conceded that it might take several generations before the debilitating effect was clearly manifest).
William Stephens, after studying 90 primitive cultures, wrote that the tribes lowest on the scale of cultural evolution have the most sexual freedom. Sigmund Freud, surprisingly to some, associated cultural advances with limitations on sexual activity. Arnold Toynbee, celebrated student of world civilizations, declared that a culture which postpones rather than stimulates sexual experience in the young is a culture most prone to progress. Will and Ariel Durant, after a lifetime of studying world history, wrote in The Lessons of History that it was imperative to maintain rigorous sexual restraints upon the young.
Donald E. Wildmon, The Case Against Pornography, p.116