http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life.

htm You are here: Science >> Origin Of Life Origin of Life - Spontaneous Generation For millennia, the Origin of Life was thought to be the result of Abiogenesis (a lso known as "Spontaneous Generation"). The doctrine of Spontaneous Generation h olds that organic life could and does arise from inorganic matter. As late as th e 17th century, there were recipes to "create" life. Take sweaty rags, wrap them around wheat, and set them in an open jar. In 21 days, you'll "create" mice. Fo r rats, just throw garbage in the street. In a few days, rats will take the plac e of the garbage. All over the world, in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, mankind was formulating recipes for "creating" bees, lice, scorpions, maggots, w orms, frogs, etc. In 1668, Francesco Redi publicly opposed the idea of Spontaneo us Generation. While it was generally accepted that rotting meat generated maggo ts, Redi disagreed. He maintained that maggots hatched from eggs laid by flies. To test his hypothesis, Redi performed one of the first known experiments to uti lize a "control group." Thus began both the death of Spontaneous Generation and the birth of the modern era of scientific development. Redi placed meat in three flasks -- one open, one sealed and one covered with gauze. Maggots appeared in the open flask, as the flies were able to reach the meat. Maggots did not appear in the sealed flask or the flask covered by gauze. At the time, this experiment was not thought to disprove Spontaneous Generation. It merely proved that maggo ts did not come from meat. Origin of Life - Louis Pasteur Spontaneous Generation was thought to be the Origin of Life until the late 1850' s. It wasn't until Frenchman Louis Pasteur that this fallacy was finally disprov ed. In 1859, the French Academy of Science sponsored a Science Fair, the goal be ing to prove or disprove Spontaneous Generation. Young Pasteur's award winning e xperiment was a clever variation of earlier experiments performed by John Needha m (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799). Pasteur filled a long necked flask with meat broth. He then heated the glass neck and bent it into an "S" sha pe. Air could reach the broth, but gravity acted to trap airborne microorganisms in the curve of the neck. He then boiled the broth. After a time, no microorgan isms had formed in the broth. When the flask was tipped so that the broth reache d the microorganisms trapped in the neck, the broth quickly became cloudy with m icroscopic life. Thus, Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation. Furthermore, Pa steur proved that some microorganisms are airborne. Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Specieswas published. From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2)Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher e lements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock); ( 5)Macro Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and (6) Micro Evolution(the varia tion within the kinds). Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented. T he first five are merely assumed. Interestingly, the fourth assumption is the ol d doctrine of Spontaneous Generation - organic life developing from inorganic ma tter (a rock). The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life. Read Origin Of Life Page 2 Now! You are here: Science >> Origin Of Life 2 (Read Origin Of Life Part 1 First) Origin of Life - Evolutionary Theory Why are children taught Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite th e apparent contradiction to empirical science? The fallacy continues in the text books mainly due to the efforts of a few zealous and influential evolutionists.

They have been quite successful in blatantly ignoring this issue. Besides Sponta neous Generation, evolutionists continue to avoid several other problems with th eir theory. Here are just two significant examples: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the fi rst assumption listed above), also known as the "Big Bang," is not an acceptable theory of Origins. The Big Bang Theory does not explain the uneven distribution of original matter that results in "voids" and "clumps", nor can it explain the reality of retrograde motion without violating the Law of Conservation of Angul ar Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the major question, "whe re did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in actual history causes only disorder and disarray? Consequently, the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of The rmodynamics. (2) Macro Evolution (the fifth assumption listed above) has been re futed by the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation (a beneficial mutation is yet to be observed). Actuall y, none of the five assumed evolutionary phases amount to anything more than "fa iry tales," and imagination has no part in science. The result is that many mode rn day science classes don't educate our children, they indoctrinate them. Origin of Life - Notable Quotes Here are a few illuminating quotes that illustrate the controversy regarding the Evolutionary Model for the Origin of Life: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to wh ich it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of th e future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could b e accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Malcolm Muggeridge, journ alist and philosopher (Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) . "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con -men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explainin g evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energ y Commission, USA. "Darwinian science inevitably will, and should have, legal, political and moral consequences." L. Tiger, an anthropologist at Rutgers (as presented in Scientifi c American, October 1995, pg. 181). Investigate More Now! You are here: Creation >> Evidence For Evolution Evidence for Evolution - The Icons of Evolution The following "evidence for evolution" can be found in any biology textbook in a ny public school in the United States of America. Accompanying each supposed evi dence for evolution is a brief explanation (ex) and the standard criticism (crit ). Evidence for Evolution - Homology: (ex) Many animals have similar bone structures, giving the superficial appearanc e of relationship. (crit) Thought to have been evidence for common ancestry unti l significant advancements were made in biochemistry. Simply put, "Similarity do es not imply a genetic relationship." (Dr. Walt Brown, "In the Beginning," 2001, p. 290.) Evidence for Evolution - Embryology: (ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving t he superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrat es DO NOT look alike in their early stages. "This idea was fathered by Ernest Ha eckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." (William R. Fix, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," 1984, p. 285.) Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Never theless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in hi gh school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.

Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest): (ex) Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary cha nge is observed in nature. (crit) Natural selection serves as a means of conserv ation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How lo ng would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an ai rplane naturally over time? It won't happen. "Natural selection may have a stabi lizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species] . It is not a creative force as many people have suggested." (Daniel Brooks "A d ownward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 12 40.) Besides, while survival of the fittest is observed in nature, it is not absolute . We also observe survival of the weakest and survival of the luckiest. Every in fant is the weakest of a species, and yet obviously, some of them survive or the re would be no species at all. Similarly, when a whale swims through a school of fish swallowing 80%, the 20% that survived were not the fittest - they were the luckiest. Somehow "survival of the fittest" has become tautology. Only the fitt est survive. How do we determine they were the fittest? Because they survived! Evidence for Evolution - The Fossil Record: (ex) Supposed "missing links" between distinct kinds of animals which can be ext rapolated as transitions between kinds. For example, Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition between reptiles and birds. (crit) There are no unambiguous tra nsitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossi l birds had teeth, and some didn't. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don't. So me mammals have teeth, and some don't. As far as claws on its wings, there are b irds living today that have claws on their wings. Nevertheless, they are obvious ly birds, and no one disputes this. Besides, superficial similarities do not imp ly genetic relationship. "There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." - Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologi st at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientif ic journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. (Reference: Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sund erland, "Darwin's Enigma," 1988, p. 89.) Read Evidence For Evolution Page 2 Now! You are here: Creation >> Evidence For Evolution 2 (Read Evidence For Evolution Part 1 First) Evidence for Evolution - The Stanley Miller Experiment: (ex) The Stanley Miller "Spark and Soup" experiment produced amino acids buildin g blocks. Evidence for the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter "naturally by random chance" in the laboratory? (crit) No! There are three probl ems with Miller's experiment. He started with the wrong materials, used the wron g conditions, and got the wrong results! (Mark Eastman, M.D., "Creation by Desig n," 1996, pp. 15-19.) The truth is, the DNA molecule is so complex that today's biochemists using today's biochemical know-how (under the supposed conditions fo und upon the early earth) cannot so much as produce its protein building blocks. Furthermore, the genetic code inherent to the DNA molecule is a digital, errorcorrecting, redundant, over-lapping, information storage and retrieval system wi th its own inherent language convention! Information science has shown that both language conventions and such incredible digital information storage and retrie val systems can only be the product of intelligent design. (Mark Eastman, M.D., Chuck Missler, "The Creator Beyond Time and Space," 1996, pp. 83-102.) To believ e life could be the product of random chance (as supposed by Darwinian evolution

) is to swim against the tide of modern empirical science. Evidence for Evolution - The Peppered Moth Experiment: (ex) Photographs of peppered moths naturally camouflaged while at rest upon tree trunks as evidence for natural selection. (crit) Biologists have known since th e 1980's that peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. The photographs found in the textbooks were staged using dead moths glued to tree trunks. (Jona than Wells, Ph.D., "Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths," 1999: http://www.arn. org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm.) Evidence for Evolution - Genetic Mutations: (ex) Genetic mutations have been shown to cause variation within species. (crit) Genetic mutations result in a net loss of genetic information. There is no natu ralistic source for genetic information (nor is there a naturalistic explanation for the existence of information). Genetic mutation simply causes existing gene tic information to become corrupted - genetic mutations follow a downward trend. For example, it is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, f oxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from a n original pair of "dogs". This is "Variation within a Kind," NOT upward evoluti on from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin's theory of evolution. The variations are always in a downward trend constrained by the genetic code (t he dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly). No new genetic information is added , genetic information is always lost: the original pair of "dogs" had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants t hemselves have lost that same potential. Evidence for Evolution - Vestigial Organs: (ex) Body parts thought to be useless remnants of past evolutionary development. (crit) Back in 1895, Robert Wiedersheim listed 180 alleged vestigial organs. Th is list included: tonsils, coccyx (tail bone), thymus, little toe, male nipples, ear nodes, pineal gland, adenoids, appendix, wisdom teeth, parathyroid, ear mus cles, body hair, and the nictitating membrane of the eye. Since the compilation of Wiedersheim's list at the end of the 19th century, we have discovered importa nt biological functions for every one of these so-called vestigial organs. Roy H artenstein comments on the human appendix: "Long regarded as a vestigial organ w ith no function in the human body, the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated." (Grolier Encyclopedia, 1998.) Circu mstances may arise at which point it would be better to risk the consequences of removing the appendix rather than risk keeping it. Nevertheless, it is not a us eless vestige from our evolutionary past. Dr. Walt Brown writes concerning vesti gial organs in general, "The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply they are vestiges of organs inherited from our evolutionary ance stors. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some functions of all organs have been discovered." (Walt Brown, "In the Beginning," 2001, p. 9.) Besides these human vestigial organs, examples of nonhuman vestigial organs give n in the textbooks are very misleading. Consider the "whale pelvis" for example. Kids are not told that the whale pelvis is necessary for muscle attachments, wi thout which the whale could not reproduce. Evidence for Evolution - Where is it? So where is the so-called evidence for evolution? Not in the biology textbooks u sed in the public schools! Aren't there any legitimate evidences for the theory? Why do we have to imagine macro-evolution happening "long ago and far away..."? Could undirected natural processes alone assemble the intricate structures foun d within living cells? Can chemistry alone account for the origin of life on ear th? What is the origin of the genetic information encoded in living organisms? U ntil evolutionists come up with real answers to these fundamental questions, Dar winian evolution should be kept in philosophy textbooks where it belongs and tak en out of biology textbooks where, tragically, it has become entrenched. You are here: Philosophy >> Creation Vs. Evolution Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful int

elligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter? Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs . religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfort unately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereo type, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly tryi ng to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is ne ither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise , the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolutio n do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theolo gical implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon emp irical observation and logic. Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter? Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the ve racity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of e volution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns. Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "surv ival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminate d for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essent ial resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger indiv iduals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, si nce if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thou sands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of natur e, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of concei ving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And a s humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are ther efore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1 889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to e liminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human bein gs, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wron g? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much ? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, " Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary e xplanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The Ger man Fhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciou sly sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitle r in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range fro m 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophic ally consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be consi dered role models. And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone migh t not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step

off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the produc t of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself. Explore More Now! Footnotes: 1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286. 2. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400. 3. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680. 4. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14. 5. Ibid., p. 230. Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this? You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reason able doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our univers e. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after th at moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singula rity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it c ome from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones wh ich defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). Th ese zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is though t to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, s omething - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appe ar? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temp erature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding unive rse that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we t end to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosio n; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesim ally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireb all appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space d idn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when me n first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, Ge orge Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they publ ished papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to i nclude measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and

energy."3The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of t he singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matt er, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or eve n where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to thei r distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arn o Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fa hrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) w hich pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which s cientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize fo r Physics for their discovery. Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.For instance, I can construct you a spherical ly symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it bas ed on observations.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view t here is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the stand ard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty para digm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is in consistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Eins tein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta. " Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nob el laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvn, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and th e renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coini ng the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. Big Bang Theory - What About God? Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the que stion, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatur al event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs th e question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Sp ecifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe ha d a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that questi on in this short article. We just ask the question: Does God Exist? Footnotes: 1. Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation a nd the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,"Astrophysical Journal, 152, ( 1968) pp. 25-36. 2. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Co llapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314

(1970) pp. 529-548. 3. Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11. 4. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American,Octobe r 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55. 5. See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf 6. See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.h alos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1 998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this You are here: Philosophy >> Does God Exist? Does God Exist - The Big Questions Does God exist? An answer to this fundamental question is a prerequisite for ans wering the other big questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a purpose? Do we have any intrinsic value? What happens after we di e? The question of the existence of God is fundamental. Does God Exist - A Philosophical Issue Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our phil osophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philos ophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Ask ing the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, H e doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything whi ch God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evide nce for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural cause s, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply b ecause a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard Univ ersity, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of scienc e somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, bu t, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material cau ses to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce m aterial explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying t o the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28). If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adhe rence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willing ness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to disc over the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the quest ion, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer. Does God Exist - Things to Consider Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observat ions to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer: Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation. Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousand s upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Inform ation requires intelligence and design requires a designer. Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising fro m non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unint

elligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise? The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanati on for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exis t? People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and o ld, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personall y experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered pray er, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more? If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter furthe r, we recommend that you consider the world's assortment of so-called Holy Books . If God does exist, has He revealed Himself? And if He has revealed Himself, su rely He exists... You are here: Science >> Charles Darwin Charles Darwin - Immediate Family Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born in Shrewsbury, England. He was the fifth of six children born to Robert Darwin (1766-1848) and Susannah Wedgwood-darwin (176 5-1817). Susannah died when Charles was only eight years old. Charles was the gr andson of two very prominent men of the time, Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) and Jos iah Wedgwood (1730-1795). Erasmus, who died several years before Charles was eve n born, was a dedicated evolutionist. Erasmus' pre-charles Darwin evolutionary w ritings include Zoonomia, or, the Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796, a two volume work). Consider this excerpt from his posthumous poem Temple of Nature (1802), " Organic life beneath the shoreless waves was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly c aves; First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, move on the mud, or pierce th e watery mass; these, as successive generations bloom, new powers acquire and la rger limbs assume; whence countless groups of vegetation spring, and breathing r ealms of fin and feet and wing." Charles Darwin - Education Charles Darwin entered Shrewsbury School as a boarding student in 1822. He left three years later, at the age of 16, called by his father to study medicine with his elder brother, Erasmus, at Edinburgh University. Repelled by the horror of early 19th century surgery, Darwin dropped out of Edinburgh in 1827 and enrolled in Christ College, Cambridge University, studying to be a clergyman in the Chur ch of England. Charles earned his Bachelor's Degree in Theology in 1831. During his tenure as a student at Cambridge, Darwin befriended botanist and mineralogis t John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861), one of his professors. It was Henslow who re commended Darwin to Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) of the HMS Beagle, who wa s in need of a naturalist. In August of 1831, Darwin received an invitation to s erve as naturalist aboard the Beagle. Darwin accepted and set sail on a fateful five year voyage (1831-36). Charles Darwin - Voyage Aboard the HMS Beagle It was the research Charles Darwin did while aboard the HMS Beagle that formed t he basis for his classic work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Sele ction, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Origin of Species), published in 1859. His voyage took him to the Coasts of South America , where it is thought he contracted Chagas' Disease. Darwin was inflicted with i ntestinal illness and chronic fatigue until his death in 1882. Before Darwin set sail, Henslow recommended that he take Sir Charles Lyell's (1797-1875) Principl es of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Sur face, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation (1830-1833, a three volume work). Henslow advised Darwin, "By all means read it for the facts, but on no account b elieve the wild theories." [1] Darwin took the first volume of Principles of Geo logy with him on his voyage and he had the second mailed to him while he was at sea. Lyell's book did two things in Darwin's mind. First, it undermined the Bibl e's Genesis account (Lyell's work was diametrically opposed to the Biblical acco

unt). Second, it gave Darwin the time scale necessary to accommodate the idea th at all life had evolved gradually. And so, Darwin, who began as a minister in th e Church of England, ended up one of its most influential opponents. Lyell'sPrin ciples of Geology, with its geologic timescale, was his turning point. Charles Darwin - Origin of Species and Natural Selection Charles Darwin returned to England in 1836. In 1839, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and, five days later, married to his cousin Emma Wedgwood, who bore him 10 children. In 1842, Darwin began drafting his Origin of Species. Dar win's work was heavily influenced by Lyell's Principles of Geology and Thomas Ma lthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). Origin of Species was ult imately published in 1859. Darwin didn't invent the evolutionary worldview. He simply brought something new to the old philosophy: a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." In his Origin of Species, Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism by which all life could have descended from a common ancestor (Darwin defined evolution a s "descent with modification"). However, today we know that natural selection is a deficient mechanism, even in light of genetic mutation. In fact, with the tre mendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years, Darwin's theory has become "a theory in crisis." [2] Dig More Now! Footnotes: 1. Richard Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution, p.286. 2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250. Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this?