Arguments that some use against the Cosmological Argument

1) Definition of God
    A) Minimal definition
        God is an entity that is above and beyond the universe.  This means
        that God is not subject to the laws of the universe.  In addition, He
        created the universe and the physical laws that govern it.  He has
        existed eternally, which is why He had no cause for His existence.
        Moreover, God is able to make decisions.  He is not merely a robot,
        but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things.
    B) Christian definition
        The Christian God has all of the aforementioned characteristics, as well
        as many others.  Among these are omnibenevolence (all-loving),
        immutability (unchanging), an interest in mankind, omniscience
        (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful).  He is perfectly just, and is the
        basis for all morality.  He created the moral code, which is imbedded
        within all humans.  He is three persons in one God, consisting of the
        Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  The Son, Jesus Christ, sacrificed himself
        in order to allow us to live in heaven for eternity.

2) Uses of definitions
    A) People vary on what they believe defines God.
    B) The minimal definition is most important when arguing for the existence of God.
    C) The Christian definition is important to know so we can answer nonbelievers and
         also for our own benefit.

3) Atheistic Objection to the Cosmological Argument
    A) The universe has existed eternally.
        1) This used to be the most common objection.
        2) Has lost popularity due to scientific findings.
        3) Steady-State theory has been shown to not be plausible.
        4) The Oscillating universe theory also has significant problem.
            a) There is no know mechanism for the supposed bounce back
                after the big crunch.  In fact the evidence from mathematics
                seems to say that those models start from the Big Bank, expand
                collapse, and then end.
        5) Recent measurements by scientists have shown that the universe is
            expanding at “escape velocity”.  This means that the universe is moving
            too quickly to ever collapse back into a big crunch.
        6) Thermodynamic properties of the universe dictate that, even if the
            universe did oscillate, an eternal universe could not occur.  The farther
            you go back in time, the shorter the time span of oscillations.  The effect
            of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale from cycle
            to cycle.  Looking back in time, each cycle generates less entropy,
            Had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor
            than the cycle that followed it.  Based on this information, the multi cycle
            model has an infinite future, but only a finite past.  Thermodynamics-
            the most overriding laws governing the universe, prevent oscillating
            models from working.
        7) According to the best estimates the universe still only has about half the
            mass needed for re-contraction.  This includes the combined total of both
            luminous matter and non-luminous matter, as well as any possible
            contribution of neutrinos to total mass.  (Note: Some may claim that dark
            matter accounts for this difference, but, as it stands, dark matter is largely
            theoretical and mysterious.  Until the scientific standing of dark matter
            is on solid ground, this particular scientific evidence stands.  Even if the
            universe has a significant amount of dark matter, it is unlikely that this matter
            will be able to account for the large difference between the mass needed for
            re-contraction and the mass we observe.)  This also goes against item 5.
  
    B) Our universe is merely the result of a “Super-cosmos” spewing off universes.
        1) This is just an extension of the eternal universe argument.
        2) This theory totally lacks evidentiary support.  It is completely ad hoc (An ad
            hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute
            one’s theory.).  It is not even theoretically possible for us to locate any
            evidence to support it.  (Note: It is often argued that God is not an
            appropriate explanation because men can never know or investigate God.
            If this is true, then the atheist must admit that this particular objection fails,
            because there is no way to investigate any alternative universes.)
        3) The “Super-cosmos” that created our universe must have existed eternally,
            or it would have required a cause.  Yet, this is not possible since an
            actual infinite number of events cannot occur.
  
    C) It is not true that everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
        1) Atheist are fond of asserting that the posting of God will result in the
            in the breakdown of the scientific method.  If this is so, then the postulation
            that something occurred for no reason would also be damaging to science.
            Science is about discovering the underlying causes for events.  If we are to
            exclaim, “That event just happened because it did”, we are certainly not
            expanding upon our knowledge for how the universe operates.  Just boldly
            exclaiming that “it just happened” is not an actual answer.  To exclaim that
            something can come from nothing for no reason is simply the breakdown
            of rational thought and analysis.  Yet quantum vacuum fluctuation theory
            has been offered to show that it can happen.
        2) The quantum fluctuation cosmology theorizes an infinitely large “universe-
            as-a-whole”, from which multiple mini-universes appear as a result of
            fluctuations.  In this “universe-as-a-whole”, virtual particle pairs constantly
            Fluctuate with energy.  This can supposedly lead to the naturalistic creation
            of our universe.
        3) It is not true that the quantum vacuum is literally “nothing”.  The so-called
            vacuum is actually a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles,
            which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence.  This has been
            confirmed by many scientists including Davies who admits:”The processes
            described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the
            conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.”  Redefining nothing
            to mean something should not be accepted.
      
    D) Stephen Hawking’s Quantum Cosmology refuter the Cosmological Argument.

        1) The Hartle-Hawking model purports to eliminate the need for a First Cause,
            even while maintaining that the universe has not existed forever.
        2) The Hartle-Hawking model uses the concept of “imaginary time” by plugging
            numbers such as the square root of -3 into equations.  Since there is no real
            number for the square root of -3, it is referred to as an imaginary number.
            The Hartle-Hawking model uses these numbers in order to create a concept
            called “imaginary time”, which, when plugged into the equations, eliminates
            the need to a First Cause.  However, this whole line of thinking is confusing.
            What are we to make of the concept of “imaginary time”?  Those who hold
            to this model have the burden of proof to explain just what this combination
            of words really mean.  Otherwise, we might as well say that “blarks” eliminate
            the need for a First Cause.  Just as “imaginary inches” is totally useless as
            actual concept, so is “imaginary time”.
        3) One of the basic principles of using “imaginary numbers” is that you have
            to convert them to real numbers if the equations are to hold.  This they refuse
            to do, because once the “imaginary numbers” are replaced with real numbers,
            the need for a First Cause comes back into the picture.

    E) If it is true that everything which begins to exist requires a cause, then God requires
        a cause also.

        1) This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and requires
            no cause.  We are not arguing that “Whatever exists requires a cause”, but
            rather, “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”.  Therefore, since God
            never began to exist, He does not require a cause.
        2) It is also argued that since God does not have a beginning and therefore
            Does not require a cause, then we are well within our rational confines to
            claim that the universe did not have a beginning and does not require a
            cause for its existence.  Unfortunately there are numerous philosophical
            and scientific evidences against the eternality of the universe.

       F) Even if it is true that the universe requires a cause, God is not necessarily the best
        Explanation.

        1) The objection is that even it all of the premises of the argument are true, there
            is no reason to suppose that God is the only reasonable explanation for the
            existence of the universe.
        2) The nature of the First Cause requires exactly the same entity as outlined in
            the minimal definition of God.  The three major points in the minimal
            definition of God are as follows: 1) An entity that is above and beyond the
            laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe. 2) An entity
            that has existed for eternity.  3) An entity with the ability to make decisions.
                a) Since the universe contains physical laws, the entity that created the
                universe would have to be separate from these laws.  Therefore, the
                entity would be operating in a different realm, and would not be
                subject to the laws of the universe it created.  Therefore, this
                characteristic of God is a necessary component of the First Cause
                entity in question.
            b) It is necessary that the First Cause entity be eternal, or else that
                entity would require a cause itself, based on the principle “Everything
                that begins to exist requires a cause”.  It is therefore true that the
                First Cause entity in question must have existed eternally, otherwise
                leading to on infinite regression of event, which is a logical
                impossibility.
            c) This is the most important point.  If it can be shown that the entity
                responsible for the creation of the universe makes decisions, we are
                forced to acknowledge the existence of God in one form or another.
                A naturalistic cause does not have the ability to make decisions.
                Therefore, if this point is shown to be highly plausible, it would seem
                inevitable that we will be forced to admit that God is the only logical
                possibility for the First Cause.
                Is such a conclusion possible.  The First Cause requires an entity
                with the ability to make decisions, because an eternally existing cause
                without such an ability would not be capable of creating something
                unique.  An automated, inanimate cause cannot will into existence
                something, because such a cause only responds to conditions.  On
                the other hand, God has the ability to make decisions, and thus can
                “will” something into existence even in the absence of any automated
                condition to do so.  An inanimate, eternally existing cause cannot create
                something unique, while an entity that is able to make decisions can.

    G) The argument involves circular reasoning since the only possible eternally existing
         entity is God.

        1) This is a fairly common response to the argument in question.  However, it is
            not our contention that God is the only potential eternally existing entity.
            For instance, it is possible that there exists more than one god.  Or, it is
            possible that there are physical objects that have existed forever outside of
            the universe.  For example, it is possible that God has a book, and that
            book has existed alongside Him forever.  Therefore, since it is at least
            possible that something other than God has existed eternally, it is not
            circular reasoning to claim that everything which begins to exist requires a
            cause.
        2) However, it may be argued further and said, “If you admit that other things
            could has existed for all eternity, then why should I believe in your God?
            What if there are multiple gods, or what if the first cause was an inanimate
            object that created the universe?”  Again, it is impossible for an inanimate
            object to cause the creation of something unique.  As far as the multiple
            gods question, it makes no difference for the atheist, because whether there
            is one God or a thousand, atheism is still refuted.  It must be mentioned here
            that we have never claimed that the Christian God exists with reference to
            the Cosmological Argument.  This argument is only to show the atheist that
            a supernatural entity does exist.  We can always argue on the basis of
            Ockham’s razor and consider it more likely that one God is responsible
            rather than multiple gods.

    H) The Cosmological Argument is merely God-of-the-gaps.

        1) This objection has to do with the fact that science is always discovering
            new things.  Since this is true, the atheist attempts to make their case by
            advancing the idea that science has yet to discover the origin of the universe
            and therefore it is not necessary to insert God into the equation.  Just give
            the scientific community time and it will be discovered.  However, is there
            any hope that naturalistic explanations will be forthcoming?
            a) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, scientists will discover
                that the universe is indeed eternal and has existed forever?
                Well, what is the trend in the data?  Almost all of the discoveries
                that have refuted an eternal universe have been uncovered fairly
                recently.  Scientists has all but abandoned the concept.
            b) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, we will discover that
                it is indeed possible for the universe to come into existence uncaused
                out of absolutely nothing?  Sadly, it is true many scientist and
                philosophers are beginning to consider this idea.  All attempts in the
                past have failed, so is there any reason to suppose that they will be
                more successful in the future?  Our vast experience with causal
                relationships gives little hope to this idea.  The principle of cause
                and effect seems to be very simple and logical.  Absolute nothing has
                no power to create anything.  If “nothing” creates something, is it
                really “nothing” at all?  We have no evidence to even suggest such.
            c) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, we will discover
                evidence that there are alternative universes or Super-cosmos or
                something of that nature?  This objection is the hardest to prove
                either way.  The existence of these alternate universes does not
                seem to be testable.  These are usually just ad hoc suggestions to say
                the least.  There is no actual evidence to support these theories.
            d) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, scientists will discover
                a naturalistic First Cause?  The idea of a naturalistic First Cause seems
                to violate logical principles.  It is impossible for an eternally existing
                entity to suddenly create something unique out of nothing.

    I) The mere existence of atheistic objections demonstrate that God is not necessary.

        1) It is claimed that any naturalistic scenario is superior to the God proposition.
            Therefore, even if a remote possibility exists that any of the various
            alternatives offered is true, it is more rational to believe in it rather that
            in the supernatural proposition.  We have dealt with just about every
            alternative offered by the atheist for the reason the universe exists.  In
            most cases, the problem with them is mot merely the lack of evidentiary
            support, but outright logical contradictions.
        2) Most of these naturalistic alternatives are not really very naturalistic at all.
            As is the case with the alternative universes or the universe-as-a-whole scheme
            promoted by the quantum vacuum fluctuation model, these scenarios involve
            aspects of reality that are not only unknown, but also unknowable.  Since
            we are confined to our universe, there is no way that we could even begin
            to analyze or test these models.  As such, these models are no more natural
            than the God proposition
        3) These alternative theories all boldly fly in the face of empirical evidence.
            Scientific findings have completely undermined these theories while at the
            same time supporting the God proposition.
        4) What about the claim that anything is more likely than God?  Should any
            atheistic theory, no matter how badly undermined by scientific findings,
            be considered more rational than the existence of God?  Not necessarily so.
            When an atheist claims this, they are basically raising the white flag and
            admitting defeat, even though they may foolishly announce there victory.
            If the evidence for God is so persuasive that one must embrace theories
            which apparently involve logical contradictions, and also have a myriad
            of scientific findings flying in their face in order to hold to atheism. Then,
            I say, the existence of God is firmly established.

          
      

The Cosmological Case for the Existence of God

I) The law of cause and effect
    A) The argument
        1) Premise #1 states;
            Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.
        2) Premise #2 states;
            The universe is a grand effect.
        3) Conclusion;
            The universe has an adequate antecedent cause.

    B) Defense of premise #1
        1) Every material effect must have on adequate antecedent cause.
        2) Scientists, and philosophers of science, recognize laws
            as reflecting actual regularities in nature.  So far as      
            scientific knowledge can attest, laws know no exceptions.     
        3) The law of cause and effect is the most universal and most  
            certain of all scientific laws.
        4) It is the foundation of all sciences.  
    C) Defense of premise #2
        1) There are 3 possible reasons why the universe exists, 1) it is eternal,
            2) it created itself or is its own cause out of nothing, 3) it was created
            by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself.
            a) Is the universe eternal?
                1) Secular scientists of almost all professions attest that the
                    universe began at some point in the distant past.  This event
                    is known as the Big Bang Theory.  It postulates that 20 or so
                    billion years ago all matter was condensed into what is called
                   a singularity.  For events not known, this singularity exploded
                   and expanded at an incredible speed into now what we observe
                   as the universe.
                2) Many theories have been put forth to eliminate the beginning
                     of the universe, 1) The steady state theory, 2) Oscillating model
                    are just a couple that have been put forth.
                3) These two have one thing in common.  They try to
                     eliminate the universe having a beginning.  Each one
                     has failed.  Secular scientists always go back to the big bang
                     to explain the beginning.
                4) It is accepted that the universe had a beginning.
                5) The universe is not infinite in its past.

            b) Did the universe create itself out of nothing?
                1) Clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics
                    which states that neither matter nor energy may be
                    created or destroyed in nature.
                2) There is no empirical evidence to even suggest such has
                    happened in the past.
                3) For something to bring itself into being it must have
                    the power to cause its own being.  If it derives its being
                    from some other source, then it clearly would not be
                    either self-existent or self-created.  It would be, plainly
                    and simply, an effect.  It would have to have the power of
                    being before it had any being with which to exercise that
                    power.
                4) Inflationary model, New inflationary model, Chaotic
                    Inflationary model have all been suggested to show that
                    the universe is did if fact create itself.  All have been shown
                    not to be plausible.  In fact they only suggest that the universe
                   came into being from a very small universe and not nothingness.
            c) The universe was created and therefore is the grand effect.
                1) This is the last available suggestion.
                2) All evidence points to this conclusion.
                3) The universe and all its sum is said to be contingent.
                4) Something is contingent if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could
                    have failed to exist.  Most things seem to exist contingently.
                    All of the human artifacts around us might not have existed;
                   for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to
                   do so.  Their existence, therefore, is contingent.  You and I, too,
                   might have not existed; our respective parents might have never
                   meet, or might have decided not to have children, or might
                    have decided to have children at a different time.  Our
                    existence, therefore, is contingent.  This is true also of the
                    Universe.  It is not necessary and could have failed to exist.
                    This is why science itself investigates and tries to explain the
                    Existence of the universe.
                5) Argument from contingency.
                    The following is this argument as put forth by Dr. William
                    Lane Craig:


There are three premises in the argument:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.

Now what follows logically from these three premises?

From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Now this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false.

But which one will he reject? Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. So the atheist is going to have to deny either 1 or 2 if he wants to remain an atheist and be rational. So the whole question comes down to this: are premises 1 and 2 true, or are they false? Well, let’s look at them.

According to premise 1 there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily and (b) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, contingent things are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

So what reason might be offered for thinking that premise 1 is true? Well, when you reflect on it, premise 1 has a sort of self-evidence about it. Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods one day and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “It just exists inexplicably. Don’t worry about it!”, you’d either think that he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

Now suppose you increase the size of the ball in this story so that it’s the size of a car. That wouldn’t do anything to satisfy or remove the demand for an explanation. Suppose it were the size of a house. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of a continent or a planet. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of the entire universe. Same problem. Merely increasing the size of the ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation.

Premise 1 is the premise that the atheist typically rejects. Sometimes atheists will respond to premise 1 by saying that it is true of everything in the universe but not of the universe itself. But this response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.” For as the nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a hack once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!

It would be arbitrary for the atheist to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule. The illustration of the ball in the woods showed that merely increasing the size of the object to be explained, even until it becomes the universe itself, does nothing to remove the need for some explanation of its existence.

Notice, too, how unscientific this atheist response is. For modern cosmology is devoted to the search for an explanation of the universe’s existence. The atheist attitude would cripple science.

Some atheists have tried to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1 by saying that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness cannot be the explanation of anything. So the universe must just exist inexplicably.

This line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. For it assumes that the universe is all there is, so that if there were no universe there would be nothing. In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true! The atheist is thus begging the question, arguing in a circle. I agree that the explanation of the universe must be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But I contend that that state of affairs is God and His will, not nothingness.

So it seems to me that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false, which is all we need for a good argument.

What, then, about premise 2? Is it more plausibly true than false?

What’s really awkward for the atheist at this point is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. Two statements are logically equivalent if it is impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together. So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the argument from contingency? The atheist typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

This is precisely what the atheist says in response to premise 1. The universe just exists inexplicably. But this is logically equivalent to saying:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B).

But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! So by saying in response to premise 1 that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2, that if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.

The argument thus proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, space less, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly mind-blowing!

The atheist has one alternative open to him at this point. He can retrace his steps, withdraw his objection to premise 1, and say instead that, yes, the universe does have an explanation of its existence. But that explanation is: the universe exists by a necessity of its own nature. For the atheist, the universe could serve as a sort of God-substitute which exists necessarily.

Now this would be a very radical step for the atheist to take, and I can’t think of any contemporary atheist who has in fact adopted this line. A few years ago at a Philosophy of Time conference at City College in Santa Barbara, it seemed to me that Professor Adolf Grünbaum, a vociferous atheistic philosopher of science from the University of Pittsburgh, was flirting with this idea. But when I raised the question from the floor whether he thought the universe existed necessarily, he was quite indignant at the suggestion. “Of course not!” he snapped and went on to say that the universe just exists without any explanation.

The reason atheists are not eager to embrace this alternative is clear. As we look about the universe, none of the things that make it up, whether stars, planets, galaxies, dust, radiation, or what have you, seems to exist necessarily. They could all fail to exist; indeed, at some point in the past, when the universe was very dense, none of them did exist.

But, you might say, what about the matter out of which these things are made? Maybe the matter exists necessarily, and all these things are just different contingent configurations of matter. The problem with this suggestion is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny particles called “quarks.” The universe is just the collection of all these quarks arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: couldn’t a different collection of quarks have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these quarks exist necessarily?

Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the quarks are just configurations of matter which could have been different, even though the matter of which the quarks are composed exists necessarily. He can’t say this because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Now it seems obvious that a different collection of quarks could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed. To see the point, think about your desk. Could your desk have been made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and structure. Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice. The answer is obviously, no. The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk.

Similarly, a universe made up of different quarks, even if identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe. It follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

So atheists have not been so bold as to deny premise 2 and say that the universe exists necessarily. Premise 2 also seems to be plausibly true.

But given the truth of the three premises the conclusion is logically inescapable: God is the explanation of the existence of the universe. Moreover, the argument implies that God is an uncaused, unembodied Mind who transcends the physical universe and even space and time themselves and who exists necessarily. What a great argument!
© 2007 Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide.

  

Just some thoughts

     As long as I have been studying about evolutionism and talking about it with people there is one thing that I have become painfully aware of, the majority of Christians cannot give an adequate answer to the critic.  Not only that, but I have seen a little bit of resistance whenever the topic of defense of the faith comes into the discussion.  It maybe that this is just my experience and not typical of the rest of the church.  I pray that it is.
     The reason that I started down this path was when I had the honor to hear Dr. Thompson from Apologetics
Press deliver a lesson on the age of the earth (it was on a cassette tape).  After hearing about all the assumptions that are associated with the method, have to be honest, I got a little mad.  I felt as if the wool had been pulled over my eyes all through school.  I had never been exposed to "the other side of the story".  It was at that point that I began to investigate the claims of evolutionism for myself.  You would be surprised at just how much is not taught in school.  Now, do not get me wrong, I do not blame the teachers for this.  They have a job to do and in all reality, they have their hands tied.  All you have to do is look at the history of the issue.  You cannot even question evolutionism in the public schools.  If you do, you and the school could and probably will get sued, or even worse, you could lose your job, be rejected from advancement, or any number of things.  I think you understand.
     Since this is the case, our young people have a really rough road ahead of them.  With this understanding about the situation, I find it hard to understand why parents are not more involved in it. 1 Peter 3:15 states "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:".  Jude 3 states "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."  Philippians 1:27 states "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"  My question is this, with the aforementioned scriptural references, why is it that some parents seem to take the situation so lightly?  Why are we not empowering ourselves with the information so we may empower our young people?
     As I have talked with parents from time to time, I am sometimes amazed at the responses that I hear.  I recall one time during Bible study, we some how started talking about evolutionism.  A parent made the comment that they did not believe it because they could not understand that is we came from apes why do we still see them today.  I quickly jumped in to correct their misrepresentation of evolutionism.  I attempted to inform them that that is not what evolutionism teaches.  In reality it teaches something completely different.  We, humans and apes, came from an ancient ancestor.  Evolutionism does not teach that we came from apes.  We have a distant relative with in our history.  In the middle of explaining their error, I was cut off and they simply stated that this is what I believe about it.  To my dismay, the conversation ended there.
     This individual has given the enemy, Satan, ammunition to begin assaulting the faith of the child.  I realize that this was done in ignorance, but the fact still remains.  Think about it for a minute.  If the child has a conversation with a teacher, counselor, or another student and this item comes up, what will happen?  The child with be embarrassed when the evolutionist corrects them.  This could have a devastating effect on the childs faith.  Not only that, the church now has egg on her face.
     Another example comes from the pulpit.  I was listening to a preacher, this time it was on my ipod, and The he made the statement that Pascals Wager was evidence for the existence of the Biblical God.  Many in the church would agree with this statement.  Again, we wind up with egg on our face.  In reality, Pascals Wager is just a way to get people to think.  To think about the claims of Christianity seriously and not just off the cuff because, if God does exist and the Bible is His word, there are serious consequences for non-belief.  That is all it does.  I remember reading an article by an atheist about this very item.  To put it short, to say that this argument proves the existence of God, it also proves the existence of Zeus, Buddha, or any number of other false Gods.  We had better believe in them to was the way that it was put.
     This is a very serious time for our young people.  We need to give them the resources that they need to help them in their walk.  I invite all the purchase the DVD, "Faith for Life"  by Brad Harrub.  It is available from Apologetics Press, you can use the link to the right.  Buy it, listen to it, and then study.

The Question about Species

This is part 6 in a series on evolutionism and the problems that are associated with it.  I pray that you will find the information helpful.


I) Introduction
    1) Darwin’s Finches
        A) This little bird has come to occupy a special place in the history of the
             Darwinian theory of evolution.
        B) The claim that these little birds demonstrate evolution in real time is made
             because Darwinists believe that they have actually observed the process of
             variation and natural selection.
        C) The claim is made that they have and are observing the process of speciation..

II) Definition
    1) Speciation is a term used by Darwinists to describe a process in which one species of
         bird, animal, or plant evolves into 2 or more species.
    2) The process of speciation is a key concept and is of central importance to the theory
    3) Darwin’s original theory offered a single mechanism for the origin of species: the
        natural selection of variations that exist from individual to individual.
    4) At the beginning of 20th century the discovery of Mendel’s work on the mechanism of
        genetic inheritance, and the phenomenon of mutation, were married to Darwin’s
        original conception to give the neo-Darwinist theory; that the mechanism of evolution
        is that natural selection is not just ordinary variations, but of genetic mutations.
    5) In both of these cases, the theory is critically dependent upon, and intimately connected
        to the idea of “species”.
    6) What is a “species”?
        A) Oxford English Dictionary defines “species” as;
            “A group of class of animals or plants (usually constituting a subdivision
            of a genus) having certain common and permanent characteristics which
            clearly distinguish it from other groups.”
        B) This definition seems perfectly straightforward.  Yet the dictionary goes on to
             add “The exact definition of a species and the criteria by which species are to
             be distinguished (especially in relation to genera or varieties) have been the
             subject of much discussion.”

III) Problems with defining the word species
    1) The definition that is used in the dictionary is the commonsense or folk definition
         that was adapted by biologists throughout the 19th century.
    2) But with the advent of a more scientific, research-based approach to biology in the 20th
         century it became clear that it was an inadequate definition.
    3) It is particularly defective when used in any context involving the discussion of
        evolutionary theories and mechanisms.
        A) The most obvious and immediate problem is this; if members of a species
             vary, how can you tell when one individual either is, or is not any longer, a
             member of the species?
        B) Better stated, when does one species become another, and what empirical test
             can be applied to test our ideas?
    4) Example of
        A) Is a mule a horse or an ass?
        B) Is it some kind of halfway house between the two?
        C) Are the criteria used to decide its status arbitrary or absolute criteria, or do
             they spring from some deep structural principle which reflects the way in which nature is truly organized?
        D) Is it a matter of scientific opinion or scientific fact?
    5) The definition of species that has been given is clearly inadequate in this case.
        A) Within the definition, we have no way of empirically testing the idea.
        B) The only test we have using this definition is the characteristics of the
             animal that we observe.  If 2 organisms have different characteristics that
             seem to distinguish them from one another then it is supposed that they
             are different species.
        C) Yet many organisms of the same species have noticeably different
             characteristics.
        D) Examples
            1) Ammonite fossils found in Blockley, England
                a) There are 2 main kinds of ammonite.  There are the fat ones
                     with 2 rows of knobs on the side (called Liparoceras) and
                     thinner ones with no knobs (called Aegoceras).
                b) Occasionally, collectors have found a 3rd kind which is said
                     to be an intermediate between these two (called
                     Androgynoceras).
                c) This 3rd kind resembles Aegoceras in the inner whorls (that is,
                     when it was young and the shell was first forming) but later on
                     resembles Liparoceras with its two rows of knobs.
                d) This 3rd fossil was believed to be a different species than the
                     other two based upon the observable characteristics.
                e) Yet upon further examination it was found out that the 3rd
                     species was in fact not a different species than the others.
                     The variation in characteristics was due to extreme sexual
                     dimorphism and therefore was not a different species.
            2)Human beings
                a) We vary greatly in matters of anatomical details such as the
                     number of fingers or toes, structure of internal organs, bones
                     in the wrist, number of pairs of ribs.
                b) Would this, using the above definition of species, make us
                     different species?
            3) The Elephant Man
                a) Joseph Carey Merrick was born Aug. 5th, 1862
                b) He had a medical condition which is still under debate
                     today.  We are still not sure what was the reason for the
                     condition.
                c) Yet, using the common definition of species, I think it not
                     difficult to assign Mr. Merrick to a different species then
                     Homo sapiens.
                d) It is clear from the appearance of the physical characteristics
                     of both outward appearance and the skeleton that it should be
                     the case.
                e) Yet he is assigned to the species of homo sapiens.  Based upon the definition given for species                      this is not logical.
                    The reason why he is assigned to this species is the fact that he came from
                     the same species, homo sapiens.
        E) These 3 examples should be sufficient to illustrate the problems with naming
             a species.  Individual characteristics are not sufficient by themselves.
    6) New definition
        A) Seeing the problems associated with the commonsense definition of species,
             evolutionists have attempted to redefine the word.
        B) The next definition to make its way into the debate was this;
            “A species is a group of plants or animals that are able to interbreed and
              and produce fertile offspring and are reproductively isolated from other
              such groups.”
        C) It would seem that this new definition has the advantage in that it provides
             an empirical test and is a matter that could be decided by experimentation.
        D) Yet as we shall see, the very feature that seems to be its greatest strength, its
             empirical nature, turns out to be its greatest weakness.  For in practice, the
             definition is found not to be workable.
            1) The test, able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring and are
                 reproductively isolated, is not applicable to plants and animals that
                 do not reproduce sexually such as sea squirts of self-pollinating
                 plants.  This is a substantial fraction of the biological world.
            2) The test cannot generally be applied to plants and animals that are
                 extinct and that are known only from the fossils.
            3) The test has led to some inexplicable anomalies.  There are some
                 breeding populations that are described as separate species and that
                 do not (or cannot) interbreed, but which are genetically identical.
            4) There are also a few known counter examples.
                a) The offspring between a horse and an ass (mule or hinny) should
                     be infertile.  Yet a few cases have been reported of hinnies                                                                             bearing offspring.
                b) The domestic bull Bos taurus can be crossed with a North                                                                               American buffalo Bison bison to produce a hybrid, the
                     cattalo, which is fertile.
        E) Does any of this really matter?  To the working biologist, no.  They can
             do their work without it.  But to the neo-Darwinist and their theory it is a
             concern of great importance.
            1) Suppose that a Darwinist scientist wishes to make a case for
                 evolution from one species to another that depends on fossils.
                 How are they to make the case if the definition of what
                 constitutes the ancestor species and the descendant species cannot
                 be tested biologically?
            2) This is not just an argument in principal, Mistakes can be made, as seen
                 earlier with the ammonites.
            3) The important thing to remember is that this new definition is just as
                 subject as the original definition for just the same reason.  It cannot
                 be empirically tested.
    7) Still another definition
        A) Since the definition that seemed to be plausible has been shown to be
             defective, a new definition has come into play.
            “ Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which
               are reproductively isolated from other groups.”
        B) The important point to notice about the new biological definition of a species
             is that it no longer insists on determining experimentally whether the creatures
             in question can interbreed.  It is enough that, for whatever reason, they do not                                     do so.”
        C) It is hardly surprising to find that Darwinist biologists feel free to describe
             the Galapagos finches as individual species on the basis that they usually
             choose not to mate and to describe to occasions when they do as                                                                  “hybridization”.   But it is from this kind of word play that all the subsequent
             claims of speciation and evolution flow.
        D) The claim made by Darwinists that speciation is an observed fact and can be
             evidenced by numerous examples continues to be asserted.  In reality it seems
             everyone of these examples falls into one of two categories of pseudo-
             speciation.
            1) Speciation is claimed by the semantic ruse of dropping the rigorous
                 biological definition of what constitutes a species and substituting a
                 definition so ill defined that any subspecific variation can be claimed
                 as speciation.
            2) The case where the number of chromosomes doubles, creating a sport.                                                   E) Neither case can give rise to evolution in the true Darwinian sense.

IV) The solution to the problem
    1) The solution to these problems Darwinists have adapted are surprisingly simple.
    2) First they draw a distinction between Macro evolution and Micro evolution.
        A) Macro evolution is the new name to Darwinian speciation.  It is the process
             by which species (organisms so genetically different they can no longer
             interbreed) come into being.  This process occurs over millions of years
             so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
        B) Micro evolution is very much simpler.  It is the change in frequency of variant
             genes (called alleles) from generation to generation, and something that can
             be observed.  By defining Micro evolution in such simple terms, they are sure
             of silencing any critics, for no one can disagree that variant genes do change in
             frequency from generation to generation.
    3) The next part is the clever part.  When you get enough Micro evolution, you eventually
         get Macro evolution.  This proposition cannot be tested empirically for exactly the
         same reason that the concept of Macro evolution itself cannot be tested.  Once you                                         have agreed with the first part of the proposition, it appears difficult not to agree with                                       the final point.
    4) In fact, this final proposition-that lots of Micro evolution adds up to one big
         Macro evolution- is contradicted by every objection raised against neo-Darwinism in                                 the past: that genetic homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain
         point; that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to Macro evolution in the
         fossil record; that billions of years are required to accumulate such Micro evolution
         and so on and so on.

The Question of Natural Selection

 Is there actually such a thing as natural selection?  Let us investigate.

I) Natural selection
    1) Early definition of Natural Selection
        A) Darwin wrote in The origin of Species this definition;
             “This preservation of favorable individual differences and variation,
               and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural
               Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest,”
        B) This is the definition that is most widely held by the layman.
        C) As we shall see later, this is not correct.
    2) Natural Selection is fundamental to Darwinian evolution
        A) Natural Selection, coupled with random mutations, is the one and only
             mechanism proposed to account for changes in form fitting a species,
             sometimes uniquely, to its mode of life.
        B) Examples of
            1) The streamlining of the dolphin
            2) The length of the giraffe’s neck.
        C) The giraffe has a long neck for 3 reasons
            1) An ancestral animal experienced a mutation which fortuitously gave
                it a longer neck
            2) The longer neck gave it some competitive advantage (such as being
                able to feed higher up in the trees) so it survived to produce many
                  offspring
            3) This natural advantage also favored its descendants, a majority of
                which would inherit the long neck.
            4) The second two stages of this process are what Darwin meant by the
                 phrase.
        D) Darwin also saw natural selection taking place in a hostile environment
             where the majority of offspring die before reaching maturity of breeding.
        E) This view, the core of Darwinian thinking, was summed up by modern
             synthetic evolutionists in the phrase “differential reproduction” and is
             synonymous with natural selection
    3) Where’s the evidence
        A) If natural selection or differential reproduction is of such importance to the
             theory we should expect to see lots of detailed studies and observations.
        B) We can search the scientific libraries in vain for such studies, yet we will
             come away empty handed.
        C) As we shall see, natural selection cannot be studied in any experimental way.
    4) Natural selection is a Tautology
        A) Natural selection means those animals and plants that are best fitted to their
             environments and way of life are the most successful.
        B) How do we measure or evaluate the fitness of an animal or plant?
            1) We do so by its capacity to survive.
            2) Just how is survival measured?  By the number of offspring left.
            3) In other words fitness means breeding success.
            4) Restated, the survival of the fittest means: the prolific breeding of the
                 most prolific breeders.
        C) In the halls of philosophy, this is called a Tautology.
            1) Tautology is defined as; A statement that is true by virtue of its
                  logical form, rather than by the substance of the statement.  As a
                 result, the statement itself is meaningless.
            2) Examples of
                a) "Either it will rain tomorrow, or it will not rain."
                b) "Be yourself."
                c) "It is wrong to do bad things."
            3) This is considered a logical fallacy
            4) In the issue of natural selection it states that the fittest individuals
                in a population (defined by those which leave the most offspring) will
                leave the most offspring.
        D) When put this way, does the phrase really mean anything at all.
    5) Observational problems
        A) Survival immediately conjures up a vision of competition between the various
             forms of life in a hostile world.
        B) They compete for the scarce food supplies and living space.
            1) In reality, such competition is very rarely found in nature.
            2) It has been estimated that there are at least 22,000 common species of
                fish, amphibian, reptiles, mammals, and birds and at least 1 million
                species of insect species.
            3) Some of these species, in fact, compete, but they are in the minority.
            4) The overwhelming majority do not fight, do not kill for food and do
                not compete aggressively for space in a way that results in the “loser”
                dying out.
        C) Examples
            1) Male Fiddler Crab
                a) It was once believed that the huge claw was used to fight its
                    fellow males for the privilege of mating with the most desirable
                    females and also to possess the most desirable territory.
                b) Observations of the male fiddler crabs show that they do not use
                    their large claw in this way.  They seem to signal the presence of
                    food to their fellow crabs.
            2) Fighting between males for domination generally leads to no particular
                advantage to the winner.
                a) Most times the loser just goes elsewhere and mates.
                b) Females will mate as readily with the loser as with the winner.
        D) The Luckiest survive
            1) Instead of the textbook explanation of the better adapted survive, it
                seems that it is the luckiest that survive and has nothing to do with
                adaptive traits.
                a) Most predators do not feed on the prey that they themselves
                    capture and kill.
                b) The majority of carnivores are opportunists in that they are
                      scavengers or carrion feeders.
                c) This includes hunters such as lions and sharks who frequently
                     eat as a result of others or natural deaths.
                d) Instead of the fight for survival that is core to the theory, the
                    observable facts indicate that most predators survive because
                    they were lucky enough to find food.
            2) Another important assumption made by the theory is that it is within
                the power of the individual to take action to ensure its survival.
                a) The toughest, cleverest, most determined, and most
                     enterprising lion will ensure its survival by seeking out new
                     territory and new sources of food when its prey runs out.
                b) This is not usually the case, in many instances the prey has run
                     short because of some natural disaster.  Even if the lion escapes
                     the natural disaster, there simply may not be alternative sources
                     of food available to it.  No action it takes can affect its survival.
                c) By the same token, an unenterprising, cowardly, stupid predator
                    in another part of the world may escape the natural disaster,
                    survive and breed.
                d) Whether a seed falls on fertile ground or stony ground is a
                     matter of luck.  There is no mutation that can assist the seed
                     which lands on stony ground.
                e) In reality, it is not the fittest that survives, but the luckiest.
        E) Redefining Words
            1) Faced with the observational evidence, the evolutionists have redefined
                their terms (this always happens).
            2) What they now say
                a) “The struggle for existence merely signifies that a portion of
                     each generation is bound to die before it can reproduce itself”
                     Thomas Huxley
                b) “If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger
                       proportion of children then blonds or brunettes, then
                     evolution will be in the direction of red hair.  The
                     characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all.  All
                     that matters is who leaves more decedents over the
                     generations.  Natural selection favors fitness only if you
                     define fitness as leaving more decedents.  In fact geneticists
                     do define it that way, which may be confusing to others.  To
                     a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength,
                     good looks or anything but effectiveness in breeding.”
                     G.G. Simpson
            3) The switch is that now fitness and survival are replaced with breeding
            4) This sounds solid enough, and it avoids all the pitfalls of the older
                 definition.
            5) Natural selection is the process by which the most successful breeders
                 populate the world, and the less successful breeders die out-regardless of their respective characteristics.
        F) The Dilemma
            1) If, as the new definition states, characteristics are irrelevant, why does
                 the giraffe have a long neck?
            2) Here is were we get stuck
            3) The only help we get from the theory if evolution is that the giraffe
                 has survived because it has survived.
            4) Natural selection is unable to offer any evidence or insight into its
                 evolution because “the characteristics themselves do not matter
                 directly at all.”
            5) What this really means is that Darwinists have become reluctant to try
                 to explain any particular characteristic as being responsible for the
                 giraffe’s evolution-even regarding its long neck- because they would
                 then have to show how and why that characteristic has favored the
                 giraffe over other animals.
            6) Natural selection has proved a completely inadequate tool for such
                 explanation since it does not allow us to refer to individual
                 characteristics at all.
            7) All that Darwinists dare say with impunity is that the giraffe has
                 survived because it is “adapted” to its environment-the modern
                 way of expressing an old tautology.
        G) Summarization
            1) The modern position of the theory of evolution is:
                a) The struggle for existence plays no part in evolution
                b) The direction of evolution is determined solely by the
                     characteristics of those animals and plants that are successful
                     breeders
                c) They are unable to say anything about why a particular
                     characteristic might favor the survival of any particular animal
                     or plant      
            2) Thus, natural selection sheds no light on the mechanism of evolution
                 and is only another way of saying that some animals survive while
                 others die.
        H) Natural selection can fit contradictory outcomes
            1) Natural selection is so elastic that it can be made to fit a whole range
                 of contradictory outcomes.
            2) Examples
                a) Natural selection is entirely compatible with the notion that all
                    organisms in stable environments have reached a fitness peak
                    on which they will remain forever.  At the same time natural
                     selection is entirely compatible with the idea that all organisms
                     should regress to the safest common denominator, a single-
                     celled organism, and thus become optimally adapted to every
                     habitat.
                b) Natural selection claims that camouflage coloring and mimicry
                     is adaptive and will be selected for, yet it also claims that
                     warning coloration is adaptive and will be selected for.
            3) As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but
                 instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome.  A theory
                 that explains everything in this way, explains nothing.  Natural
                 selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalization after the fact.