Friday, January 31, 2014

Materialism and Evolution Are False - Period

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

1/30/14 email

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Glenn,

Could you please make a response piece to Jesse Albrecht's article on the meaning of "days" in Genesis one? If you do not feel like using his text directly, could you at least write an article that addresses his assertions and claims about the meaning and why the 24 hour day must be correct? Please help.

-Carolyn

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Carolyn,

I'm not in the habit of writing articles of disagreement with other blogs. Why have you not posted a comment on the offending post?