A Creator, or evolution? the battle continues/
ORF [Austrian Radio Broadcast] report 00, 2005-11-22
The theory of an intelligent creation
Change of direction in the Catholic church?
No reconciliation possible between big
bang theory and belief in a Creator/ "Die Presse" – interview with Hans Küng 00,
2005-11-2005
Is there such a thing as Christianity without belief in
a Creator God?/ "Die Presse" – interview with Adolf Holl 00, 2006-01-19
The theory of evolution and the second law of
thermodynamics
The natural sciences know nothing of evolution/
Book, Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith 00, p. 18 f
The human brain and evolution / Book, Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith 01, p.135 ff.
The impossibility of evolution / What
Darwin didn’t know 00, 2012-09-13.
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information
and the Higher Taxonomic Categories / Discourse 810
Scientists overstepping bounds
When last summer the supreme primate of the Catholic Church in Austria, Cardinal Christoph
Schönborn, intervened in the discussion about evolution and the creation story, it seems he
wanted to introduce rationality to a debate that was increasingly being conducted on the basis
of ideological conviction. Speaking on Sunday at the Episcopal Palace in Vienna, Schönborn told
the news agency Reuters that he had wanted to show where scientists, as the church sees it, are
off limits. Schönborn defended the "intelligent plan" view of creation.
Vatican astronomer criticizes the "intelligent plan"
Meanwhile the Vatican’s top astronomer, one of the highest ranking scientists at the Holy See,
commands attention when he states that the "intelligent plan" is not a science.
Bible taken literally
Schönborn, who was thought to be one of the favorites in the last papal election, published
some comments in the New York Times in mid-July which drew down the wrath of American
scientists. The sharpest critics of the 60-year-old cardinal told him he was a fathead if he
wanted to replace the conclusions of science with a doctrine of creation history. This "creationism"
is based on a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation.
Coincidence or higher intelligence?
The follower of Pope Benedict XVI now rebutted the arguments of his critics in an interview, and
once more described his position, already outlined in his NYT article "Finding Design in
Nature", which relies on the theory of "intelligent design". Advocates of this theory,
while recognizing the findings of evolution theorist Charles Darwin, nonetheless think evolution
is based not on coincidence but on a higher intelligence.
Vatican astronomer: of "apples and oranges"
The Vatican now contradicts Schönborn, at least in part. The idea of ""intelligent design"
is not a science, and should not be taught in science lessons, according to a statement made on
Friday by Vatican head astronomer, the Jesuit George Coyne, whose views aroused a lot of
interest. He said it was wrong to place the theory of evolution and the ""intelligent plan"
idea alongside one another in schools. "The intelligent plan is not a science, even if people
act as if it were. The theory ought to be taught under the heading of religion or the cultural
sciences, not as a scientific subject," Coyne went on to say.
"Science explains the universe"
Coyne was referring here to the debate between "creationists" and "evolutionists", which
is being carried on principally in the USA. The creationists want to have the "intelligent
plan" made a firm part of public school teaching curricula. In June Coyne published an article
in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, in which he confirmed God’s role in creation but
at the same time restricted it by arguing that science is sufficient to explain the history of
the universe.
Getting away from the idea of God the dictator
"If we are to take the findings of modern science seriously, as well as the results of modern
biblical research, then Christians have to say goodbye to the idea of a ‘dictator God’, a
Creator God or even Newton’s God, who designs the universe to run like a ticking clock." God
should rather be seen as a supportive and encouraging parent, said Coyne.
What is at stake
Behind this controversy is the battle between "creationists" and "evolutionists", which
has been bitterly contested for years, in the USA above all. The first group enjoys the backing
of America’s influential evangelical Christians in denying the findings of modern biology that
build on the foundations of Darwin’s theory, according to which the various animal and plant
species evolved on the basis of natural selection and adaptation. The creationists insist that
all life was created by God. In many American schools the pressure of evangelical groups means
that the theory of evolution is not allowed to be taught.
Church insists on creation
It was supposed up till now that the Catholic church took a more open-minded view of the theory
of evolution – to which, according to the New York Times, there is absolutely no serious
scientific alternative. This was because Pope John Paul II had admitted in a 1996 statement that
the evolution of living creatures was "more than just a hypothesis". But Schönborn’s
article referred to other statements made by John Paul II and his successor Benedict XVI, of
whom Schönborn is thought to be a follower, which point to the church’s insistence on the
principle of creation.
Schönborn explains his approach
"Reason can recognize that matter does not organize itself independently," Schönborn said
in an interview with Reuters – "that at the very least matter requires information, and
information is an expression of intelligence." Then the next step is the question what kind of
intelligence we have to do with. "My answer as a believing Christian – of course I think it is
the intelligence of the Creator – follows obviously from this."
"Darwin can’t explain everything"
Schönborn showed himself to be surprised at the sharp criticism called forth by his saying that
Darwin cannot explain everything. If the theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis, said
the Cardinal, then it must be prepared in its turn to be subject to scientific criticism. But
this in his view is by no means the case. He thinks there is practically a ban on discussion.
"Critics of the theory of evolution are discriminated against or discredited right from the
start."
Backup in high places
According to the Catholic press agency Kathpress, Pope Benedict XVI himself supports the
position taken by Schönborn. About two weeks ago the Pope, in a meditation on psalm 135 given
at a General Audience, spoke explicitly about the "intelligent plan" of the cosmos – the
same term that Schönborn had used in his comments.
(This report has been taken from the website "Austrian Radio
and Television" – ORF / https://orf.at – News dated 22
11. 2005)
(See also the report in ORF-Science: "‘Intelligent Design’ – science or ideology?"")
The theory of "intelligent design", or intelligent creation, has been under
discussion for some time now. It was first propounded by Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director of the
Discovery’s Center for Science & Culture and a Professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University
of Florida, USA, in a comprehensive and peer-reviewed article published in the famous scientific
weekly Nature on 9. 9. 2004. In his dissertation Dr. Meyer points to the fact that the theory of
intelligent design can provide answers for just those questions that the various theories of
evolution have so far been unable to resolve. Theories of evolution are still not in a position to
explain how new forms of living creatures come into being (macroevolution) or how
information-bearing molecules (DNA) are created in the cells. The theory of intelligent design, on
the other hand, does not suffer from this inadequacy. Dr. Meyer writes in his conclusion as follows:
"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various
explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate – and perhaps
the most causally adequate – explanation for the origin of the complex specified information
required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent
scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle
with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."
Original article: Intelligent Design:
The Origin of Biological Information
Even if some are not yet prepared to believe it, the attentive observer cannot help
noticing that the pontificate of Benedict XVI is beginning to make itself felt, at any rate in
Austria. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s remarks in the NYT rekindled discussion about "intelligent
design", and he was backed up by statements made by the Pope. This was the first shot. The Pope
then gave an address on an ad limina visit to the Austrian bishops, in which he did not
shrink from speaking plainly. KATH.NET documents the media response to Pope Benedict XVI’s speech
to the Austrian bishops in the following terms:
- "Pope calls Austrian bishops to fall in line"
- "Pope asks for a change of direction"
- "Pope wants bishops to be more outspoken".
The Pope also urged Austria’s bishops not to be squeamish about putting across
difficult points of doctrine, and to make their views known when necessary. This, as it appears,
gave Salzburg’s Suffragan Bishop Andreas Laun, already known as a social critic, the
encouragement he needed to issue some long overdue comments on the situation in Austria in a
statement to KATH.NET. The disapproval he voiced was principally – but not solely – directed at
Hermann Nitsch, an Austrian "artist" whose "Orgiastic Mysteries Theater", involving
slaughtered pigs and steers, has recently been allowed to perform even on the stage of Vienna’s
Burgtheater (!) with the approval of Austrian politicians, and to whom these same politicians
awarded the Österreichischer Staatspreis [Austrian State Prize]. Here is what Andreas Laun has to
say about it:
"Hermann Nitsch has been given a State Prize. It is beyond comprehension.
Whatever for? For his blasphemous texts? For effusions that spring from such a repulsive
imagination that I cannot even reproduce them here as grounds for my disapproval? For his orgies
and ‘liturgies of blood and guts’? Or what else can it be? People say that politicians
listen to the views of the people. But is this true? (…
They are failing to do so if they assert that homosexuals must be granted privileges to which
otherwise only married couples and families are entitled. They are failing to do so when they
mechanically echo the Nobel Prize Committee’s misguided award to Ms Jelinek, and then give Mr
Nitsch a State Prize. Are they aware that in so doing they are taking money from people whose
principal reaction to the so-called ‘art’ of Mr Nitsch is one of unmitigated disgust?"
(Extract from KATH.NET
article by Suffragan Bishop Andreas Laun)
Alongside these two statements, which must be seen as remarkable coming from the
church in Austria, a new Vatican directive on an old problem is now also attracting attention: the
document (Instruction) "On the Priesthood and Those With Homosexual Tendencies". This states
that the church cannot allow men who are practicing homosexuals, have deep-seated homosexual
tendencies or are ‘supporters of gay culture’ to study for the priesthood or to enter holy
orders. The issue of homosexual priests is a problem in the USA as well, where the Catholic church
is having to pay out millions of dollars as a penalty for the sexual abuse by its priests of
children and young people of both sexes. And now just recently a scandalous incident in Miami,
Michigan, made the headlines, when a homosexual Catholic priest by the name of
Andrew Dowgiert
celebrated a mass for homosexuals in which he gave communion to a dog (!) – whereas the Catholic
church otherwise refuses communion even to believing Christians who are Protestants.
When we look at the statement on this issue emanating from the Evangelical Reformed church in the
person of State Superintendent of Kärnten (Austria) Wolfram Neumann, we do find ourselves
wondering whether the Catholic church may not perhaps have some justification for its attitude, in
the light of what is written in the Bible: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of
the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1Cor 11,27).
Neumann gave his opinion in a broadcast, saying that "Homosexual partnerships are not expressions
of perversity, they are life partnerships which are entered into in all seriousness and with a view
to permanence." According to the State Superintendent the Evangelical Reformed church sees
same-sex partnerships as "experiments in living that must be taken seriously, from which, as is
well known, the church does not withhold its blessing."
To what extent the change of direction called for by the Pope can actually be realized in practice
will depend in no small measure on the courage of the Catholic clergy worldwide. But in Austria, at
any rate, the Pope’s call has not been without effect. The Austrian Cardinal we quoted above,
Christoph Schönborn, has actually not been noted in the past for his fearless testifying – rather
he was regarded as a somewhat timid, cautious and invariably polite dignitary of the church. It is
all the more astonishing then to find this man speaking openly about faith – even if, on closer
examination, it proves to be no more than a tentative approach. Schönborn defends God as the
creator of the universe. But he does not do this in absolutely clear and unmistakable terms – rather
he expresses it as his opinion that everything that exists is based on an intelligent plan, an "intelligent
design". Though that in itself, it must be said, is remarkable.
Equally noteworthy is the statement made by another Catholic theologian on this topic. In an
interview with the journal "Die Presse" ["The Press"] published on 30.11.2005, former
Professor of Dogmatics Hans Küng gave the following answer to the question whether, in the
light of the above statements coming from Cardinal Schönborn, it is possible to reconcile the
natural sciences with Christian faith:
"We must always clearly distinguish between the two levels. Scientific
language and religious language cannot be compared with one another, any more than science and
poetry. This means that the big bang theory and belief in a creator, or the theory of evolution
and the creation story, are not in contradiction but they cannot be reconciled with one another
either. (…) Belief in the creation adds nothing to the instrumental knowledge of the natural
sciences, it does not offer any kind of additional scientific information. (…)" (H. Küng)
Austrian daily press "Die Presse" 1/19/2006 https://www.diepresse.com/
Here, now, we have just that type of theologian who over the past 500 years has
repeatedly put obstacles in the way of a mutual accommodation between science and the church. It is
these people who are eager at all costs "clearly to distinguish between the two levels", and
above all not to tolerate any overstepping of the limits, any contact or even any exchange of ideas
with science. And yet, on the other hand, they assert that the big bang theory and belief in a
creator are not contradictory. This approach rather brings to mind the familiar saying, "Wash my
fur, but don’t make me wet". So they are also quite happy to have science stay in its place, so
that it does not disturb the intellectual satiety of these theologians with any new scientific
theories and discoveries. Proof of this is provided Hans Küng’s following statement:
"Most natural scientists correctly dispute the claim that we can read
an ‘intelligent plan by God’ into the factual, to some extent even contradictory evolution of
the cosmos, life and human beings. The natural scientist must keep his knowledge within the
dimensions of space and time – he would be overstepping these limits if he were to speculate about
eternity. When it comes to the great questions of meaning, it is not the responsibility of the
natural sciences but of philosophy, theology and finally, yes, religion. (…) If the natural
scientist cannot answer these questions about the absolute beginning, he should at least take them
seriously – even if he should then have to concede that only answers actually based on faith are
possible, such answers as the first pages of the Bible bring to our attention."
So here, conversely, we find it asserted that in the creation of the universe God
did not have any kind of plan – so everything must have come into existence without any plan or
goal. This puts Hans Küng on precisely the same level as the neo-Darwinian natural scientists, who
then add the logical conclusion "Ergo, God cannot possibly exist." And then Küng states it as
his opinion that the natural scientist should kindly oblige by sticking to time and space, and leave
eternity to the philosophers and theologians. This point of view is based on a world picture which
may have been current a hundred years ago; but since the advent of Albert Einstein, the theory of
relativity and quantum physics, time and space have become relative concepts, and a theologian
should exercise greater caution in talking of them. But then, when we hear the mental and verbal
contortions emanating from some of today’s theologians, they are the very last people to whom we
would be willing to trust the task of explaining eternity.
When he says that in answer to questions about the absolute beginning we have to rely on faith, and
then refers to the first pages of the Bible, again the two positions are mutually contradictory. The
Christian faith assumes the existence of a Creator God, and recognizes, that we are not faced, on
these same first pages of the Bible, with any kind of allegories which can only be accepted on the
basis of faith. When we find here a report of the creation of the sun, moon and stars – that is to
say, of the cosmos and our own solar system – these are clearly the categories of natural science
and not those (or not only those) of theology. If the church has in the past not been able to make
much of these scriptural passages, that is to be put down to the intellectual lethargy and satiety
of its theologians – it certainly is not the fault of the text!
When he says that in answer to questions about the absolute beginning we have to rely on faith, and
then refers to the first pages of the Bible, again the two positions are mutually contradictory. The
Christian faith assumes the existence of a Creator God, and recognizes, that we are not faced, on
these same first pages of the Bible, with any kind of allegories which can only be accepted on the
basis of faith. When we find here a report of the creation of the sun, moon and stars – that is to
say, of the cosmos and our own solar system – these are clearly the categories of natural science
and not those (or not only those) of theology. If the church has in the past not been able to make
much of these scriptural passages, that is to be put down to the intellectual lethargy and satiety
of its theologians – it certainly is not the fault of the text!
After stating in the above passage that the cosmos came into being without any plan or aim,
Professor Küng goes on to agree with the view of the Darwinists that human beings are descended
from the apes, when he says:
"Since emerging from the animal kingdom, human beings have had to
learn how to behave in a fully human and civilized way."
And so here too we find ourselves wondering – rather as with the question of the
Evangelical Reformed church referred to earlier – whether the Vatican may not have had a certain
justification for withdrawing Professor Küng’s authorization to teach in the name of the church.
And it is much the same when we consider the Austrian theologian Adolf Holl. The Catholic
Chaplain and University assistant, who was removed from his teaching post, was asked the question
whether "the religious-historical idea of Christianity is possible without belief in a Creator God"
in an interview with Die Presse, published on 19. 01. 2006. His answer was as follows:
"It is perfectly feasible, would be my answer – both as a Catholic theologian
and as a scientist of religion – if I am prepared to go back to the sources, that is to say, to
the first 150 years after the birth of Christ. The moment I look at these sources and the
various currents prevalent at the time, I find not just one form of Christianity, but at least
six: not just those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but those of Thomas and Paul as well. If I
then inspect these I can manage very well today, as a theologian and a scientist of religion. I
can say, in a liturgical formula, that I believe in God the Almighty Father, creator of heaven
and earth. But this is not a statement of the same kind as I make when I say that Australia is
an island. If we do not have regard to this distinction, we get into that very dead end in which
Cardinal Schönborn is stuck." (Adolf Holl)
Austrian daily press "Die Presse" 1/19/2006 https://www.diepresse.com/
First of all, it is extremely surprising that Adolf Holl, when he "inspects" the
Gospels with reference to the Creator God, supposes himself to have unearthed various different "Christianities".
But even more startling is his assertion that Christianity is "feasible" without the belief in a
Creator God. And as he goes on to explain, when he prays "I believe in God … creator of heaven
and earth", this deserves about as much credit, in terms of truth content, as the promise of a
fortune teller that you will have a long life. That this attitude of mind enables him to "manage
very well today" cannot be doubted. All the same, he should not then continue to call himself a
theologian (from the Greek theos, God, and logos, teaching), seeing that on his own
admission the basis of his teaching – namely God – has patently gone missing.
For centuries the Catholic church showed little interest in science, and so it has
been rather poorly informed in this respect. Now Cardinal Schönborn, as a representative of the
higher clergy, takes it upon himself to bridge the hostile distance between church and science ("two
paths proceeding separately in parallel") and to offer scientists something more like a common
approach. And at once they are all over him, like the proverbial pack of hounds after a hare. They
brand his statements as stupid and his point of view as unscientific.
And yet if we consider the facts objectively, we find that actually it is the natural scientists
themselves whose evolutionary dogma of "chance and necessity" contravenes their own principle
that it should be possible to reproduce the phenomena on which a scientific theory is based. The
theory of evolution postulates that matter organizes itself – that is to say, life comes into being
from matter and energy without any need of help from an intelligent plan or idea. But the very laws
of physics – the laws of thermodynamics[1] – state that
matter actually does not have any tendency to self-organization. And the phenomena behind these
physical laws are – unlike the theses of the theory of evolution – capable of being reproduced at
any time, as we can observe them in the world around us on a daily basis.
One such example would be an abandoned farmhouse, which many of us must have seen somewhere at some
time in our lives – one that is exposed to the ravages of weather both summer and winter, and on
which no maintenance work has been carried out for decades. Based on the principles of the theory of
evolution, this house should be capable of constantly renewing and improving itself, based on the
self-organization of the matter of which it consists. So after the lapse of a long period of time we
should find ourselves presented with an intact and habitable house, one that is practically as good
as new. But the true picture is very different: the house has collapsed, the walls have caved in,
only a rudimentary roof remains and it is anything but a place you would consider living in. And
this is just the development that the laws of physics – the laws of thermodynamics – predict:
matter, left to itself, does not tend to self-organization, but rather to chaos and decay. So those
scientists who believe in this kind of self-organization on the part of matter can be put in the
same class as children who think that power comes out of the socket.
The presumption of the theory of evolution in trying to explain the coming into being of life as a
consequence of the endogenous properties of matter itself, rather than as the consequence of an idea
that has its origin outside matter, is similar to the endeavor to ascribe the authorship of the text
of a book to the paper on which it is printed rather than to some external source of information.
This view found support from the well-known natural scientist and Professor of Organic Chemistry,
Dr. Dr. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, whose lectures at the Audimax of the Technical University of Vienna and in
other Austrian lecture halls I myself have come to appreciate highly. Dr. Wilder-Smith is one of
those very rare scientists who, as a result of their great intelligence and vast knowledge of their
subject, have not only attained to deep insights into the created world, but have also come to the
conviction that any natural scientist who denies the existence of God is actually giving clear
evidence of his own incompetence and so quite simply disqualifying himself as a scientist. In his
book "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" Dr. Wilder-Smith discusses this theme in
comprehensive detail:
The doctrine of evolution is of course a philosophy. To be specific, it is a
philosophy that promises to give you "something for nothing" (free of charge, that is) – a
principle that has always been popular! This is because it promises the formation and creation
of order – an order of [biological] machine systems – out of disorder, without any
governing idea or teleonomy [purposefulness] – in fact, "something for nothing". It
promises to bring forth the order of life spontaneously on the basis of non-directed energy
(i.e. without a governing idea) out of the disorder of non-living material. It promises the
formation of the most complex biological machine – for the biological cell is an unimaginably
complex metabolic machine system – without being able to explain any prior know-how or idea it
may have. Where in all the history of experimental science can we find a postulate for the
construction of a machine out of "raw" materials, without any idea, expertise or
knowledge playing a part – just on the basis of its capacity for organizing itself?
Neo-Darwinism postulates the coming into being of the most sophisticated coding system for a
machine that is far more complex than all the machines human beings have ever invented, just on
the basis of coincidence and self-organization. Where will you find a systems engineer who
attributes the development of his code and the code contents just to chance? In any other field
of the natural sciences – other, that is, than in neo-Darwinian biology – a postulate like this
would be flatly and immediately ruled out just on the grounds of sound common sense.
This extract has been taken from the book "The Natural Sciences Know
Nothing of Evolution" by the natural scientist Professor Dr. Dr. Dr. A. E Wilder-Smith (1915-1995), Einigen,
Schweiz (Schwabe & Co Verlag [Schwabe & Co Publishing House], Basel/Stuttgart 1978). Dr. Wilder-Smith has taught
at the University of London, the University of Geneva, ETH Zürich [Federal Technical College, Zurich], the
University of Illinois, Chicago and elsewhere. He has been a consultant to the American armed forces of NATO, with
the rank of general, in connection with the problem of drug abuse, and has also been a visiting professor at various
colleges of medicine in the USA and Europe.
Here we have to ask ourselves how it is that the advocates of neo-Darwinian biology
insist on the capacity of matter to organize itself in defiance of every principle of scientific
reason, when even the laws of physics speak against it. We will find the answer to this question
when we look at the alternative that is all the neo-Darwinians would otherwise have available: if
there is no such thing as self-organization, and so no such thing as evolution – while on the other
hand no one can deny that what is, does actually exist – the only remaining possibility is the
existence of a God who has created everything. And the scientists are no less scared of that than
thieves are of the light.
The basis for this attitude lies in a deep mistrust of the church on the part of the entire
scientific community. A trigger for this was the historic circumstance that the church, up to the
Copernican turning point (and even after it), insisted on a geocentric world picture (with the earth
at the center of the universe), based on a completely unjustified appeal to the Bible – this even
though the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and the Italian mathematician,
physician and astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1672) had both realized and demonstrated that
it is not the sun that goes around the earth, but rather that the opposite is true: all the planets
circle the sun and so supply a foundation for the heliocentric world picture.
Insistence on the Bible, now, is undoubtedly a good thing, but this kind of attitude should not be
the result of a superficial study of Scripture which, based on a person’s own indolence and
incapacity, puts the word of God as it appears in the Bible in obvious opposition to the plain
reality of the visible creation. It was just this attitude on the part of the church that made
Copernicus for a long time reluctant to publish his discoveries. When he finally brought out his
comprehensive work "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" ("On the Revolutions of the
Heavenly Spheres") on 24 May 1543, church leaders actually tried to have the publication
suppressed. John Calvin (1509-1564), the Swiss Reformer, asserted that on the basis of
biblical teaching it was impossible that the earth should move, and Martin Luther (1485-1546)
said: "the idiot (Copernicus) will turn the whole science of astronomy upside down." The
Catholic church did in fact ban the books of Copernicus, and only recognized the scientific fact to
which he had drawn attention 200 years after his death.
Some 300 years later, in 1858, the British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published
the first theory of evolution based on a natural principle – namely, the principle of natural
selection. This is the origin from which all modern evolutionary theories – all branches of
Darwinism – are derived. And because it was supposed possible with the help of this theory to
explain all that exists, Darwinism dispensed with the Creator God, and so also with the church.
Creationism – that is, the belief in God as the creator of the entire universe – was then likewise
branded as unscientific, and marginalized as "pseudo-science". But in view of the fact that the
evolutionists still are lacking the "missing links" for their theses and theories, and so have been
unable to supply a scientifically watertight proof, it is actually these same Darwinists who are
only able to continue investigating, discovering and cataloging what is there already, so that they
turn out to be only the "free riders" of God’s creation.
The inability of such people to recognize an intelligent plan and the creative act of God in what
they have discovered and investigated, both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm, is not to be put
down to God’s being missing from his creation but rather to his being absent from their own
misguided minds. They hate having to ascribe authorship to any kind of "higher being", much
preferring to assert that the whole universe has come into being of itself – even if this
contradicts their own discoveries and teachings, like the first two laws of thermodynamics.
Now if we were to quote all the references to be found in Scripture to the Creator God and the
creation of the universe, it would undoubtedly expand this document beyond all bounds. Anyone who
knows the Bible at all is aware of this, and anyone who is interested need only consult his Bible.
All the same, we will just bring forward a few scriptural passages here, in order to provide
biblical proof that everything that exists has been created by God.
For You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.
Rev 4,11 "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory
and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were
created." Rev 4,11;
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained.
Ps 8,3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The
moon and the stars, which You have ordained; 8.4 What is man that You take thought of him, And
the son of man that You care for him? Ps 8,3-4;
Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world.
Ps 90,2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the
earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. Ps 90, 2;
Just as in Psalm 8,3 the heavens and the stars indicate the entire universe, so here too, in Psalm 90,2, the earth and the world are not being used as synonyms: "earth" refers to our planet, and "the world" to the cosmos as a whole.
In conclusion, let us once more hear what Prof. A. E. Wilder-Smith has to say, when
at the end of the book we referred to above he demonstrates the untenability of the theory of
evolution by taking the human brain as an illustration.
C. Judson Herrick[2] writes as
follows: "Every neuron of the cerebral cortex is enveloped in an extremely complex tangle of
the finest nerve fibers, some of which come from parts far removed. We are probably safe in
assuming that most of the cortical neurons are connected, directly or indirectly, with every
single cortical zone. This is the anatomical basis for the processes of cortical association.
These association fibers that are linked in a mutual network constitute an anatomical mechanism
which makes possible, during the activation of a single chain of cortical association, an
enormous number of different functional combinations of the cortical neurons. This goes far
beyond all imagined mathematical maxima that have ever been given by astronomers when measuring
the distances between the stars. (…) If a million cortical nerve cells, in groups of two
neurons at a time, are joined in all possible combinations, the number of different
inter neuronal connections that would come into existence on this basis would amount to
102 783 000 (a 10 followed by 2,783,000 zeroes). (…)
From what we know of the structure of the cerebral cortex … we may conclude that the
number of anatomically existing intercellular connections that are available for use in short
series of cortical neurons, and that would be simultaneously stimulated by an image on the
retina in the visual field, would be very much in excess of this 102 783 000
which we have proposed as a theoretically possible total number of combinations when postulating groups
of just two at a time."
For purposes of comparison, Livingston adds: "We need to remind ourselves that the total
number of atoms existing in the entire universe has been estimated to be around
1066."
These facts show that the human cerebral cortex is a teleonomic organ of quite unimaginable
complexity. Consider that the information for this cerebral cortex project is algorithmically
conveyed in a language encapsulated in miniature in an egg and a sperm. Consider too that every
associative neuron connection that is required for the vast associative capacity of the cerebral
cortex is fixed in the form of biochemical instructions. The entire human being, and the entire
cerebral cortex, have been built up on the basis of similar genetically coded instructions. All
the instructions involved in this unimaginable construction project are set down in a language
that would require more than 1000 volumes, each with 500 printed pages, of our own information
retrieval systems (books) if printed out. But all this information is saved in the unimaginable
biological minuteness of an egg and a sperm. And probably too the decay of the entire system
(aging, that is to say) is likewise contained in the zygote in the form of genetically coded
instructions.
If any natural scientist remains convinced that the teleonomics and the information that are
needed to construct an organ like the cerebral cortex have arisen as the result of a combination
of chance and natural law, either he is unacquainted with the second law of thermodynamics or he
is a superstitious fellow who believes in miracles. This is because he should know, as a natural
scientist, that teleonomy and intelligence are needed to build an intelligent electronic
computer – because the material of the computer does not itself possess the teleonomy that is
required here, and neither do natural laws.
(This extract has been taken from the book "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"
by the natural scientist Professor Dr. Dr. Dr. E Wilder-Smith. Prof.
A. E. Wilder-Smith)
And so the scientists of today fall into the same error for which their predecessors
criticized the church 500 years ago (with good reason), when the boot was on the other foot. Today’s
science denies what is so patently obvious and unmistakable in every single atom that exists in the
universe – God’s plan in his creation. But whereas half a millennium ago the church lacked both
the intellectual caliber and the information needed, scientists today have all the information and
intelligence they could possibly require to attain to this realization. So today it is not
incapacity that prevents them from recognizing an intelligent plan in creation – it is just pure and
simple denial. As Wilder Smith titles one of his other books: "He who thinks must believe"!
The background to this entire complex of problems seems on the one hand to be the fact that the
church, alas, is still unable to interpret the statements of Scripture correctly, and so does not
know how to classify the findings of modern science; while on the other hand science sees no cause
whatever to consult the statements of Scripture in connection with its work. If on the side of the
church as much emphasis were to be placed on the study and interpretation of Holy Scripture as on
the organization and management of church hierarchies, and if science on the other hand were not
always immediately to reject everything emanating from the church root and branch, a fruitful
collaboration might yet develop which would benefit both sides.
Whoever believes that the human body and the universe have come about through evolution is like
someone who claims that the earth is the center of the universe and cannot revolve. Intellectually,
neither are able or have the will to implement the insights at which human beings have arrived
during the last 500 years.
(See also Excursus 12: "The Creation.")
Creation or Evolution? – Creation and evolution!The Christian churches and the sciences argue – especially
in the USA – about the creation of the world. Whether that was the creation
by God or the evolution. In fact, both have strong arguments, which cannot
be explained away. |
The following pages take issue with the theory, which so many people adopt
unthinkingly, that life arose more or less by chance as a result of evolution. There are
questions involved at the root of this to which our natural sciences cannot provide answers –
for example, why it is that our brain is the only organ capable of thinking about itself, or how
it is possible for the six inanimate basic elements of the human body (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus), when arranged in the right way, suddenly to possess
consciousness. And when we look at some of the most amazing and miraculous features of our human
nature, it becomes clear likewise that from the point of view of the natural sciences a theory
that posits life arising on the basis of random chance can be completely ruled out. This was a
truth recognized after more than 60 years by the former atheist, author and philosopher Malcolm
Muggeridge, who summed it up as follows: "I myself am convinced that the theory of
evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in
the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an
hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
In order to refute the theory of life’s coming into being through evolution, it is pointless
just to present arguments against its various inconsistencies. In the last resort, when it is a
matter of this kind of confrontation, adherents and opponents of evolution are always bogged
down in a stalemate situation. But if a law of nature can uproot the entire thought system of
evolution at the root, all these elaborate and wearisome discussions for and against become
quite unnecessary. This is because natural laws know no exception – they will always apply, at
all places and all times, throughout the universe. And that is why we will always find the most
powerful argument in science that is based on the laws of nature. For example, everyone knows
today that a perpetuum mobile – a machine that keeps on running without any input of energy
– is an impossibility, because the law of energy conservation simply forbids it. And based on
the very same principle, the following natural law excludes the possibility of life arising
through evolution right from the start:
Coded information cannot arise of its own accord.
Coded information is a mental variable
so it follows that it must ALWAYS arise from a mental source.
What does that mean? Today we know something that was a closed book to Darwin.
The cells of all living creatures contain an unimaginable quantity of coded information. The
formation of all organs of the body takes place on an information controlled basis, thousands of
regulated and precisely coordinated processes in every individual cell function similarly in an
information controlled way, as also does the production of all substances intrinsic to the body
(no less than 50,000 different proteins in the human body). And every working instruction needed
for this is stored in the DNA of our cells – with the highest concentration known to us
anywhere. For example, the volume of a pinhead consisting just of DNA material would be
sufficient to store a pile of paperback books which would be 500 times higher than the distance
of the earth from the moon. This is a quite inconceivable concentration of information based on
a principle of extreme genius, from which all our computer memory systems are very far removed.
.
Coded information always follows precise grammatical rules which have been
agreed in advance. Every language, whether human or animal, can only function because the
correct arrangement of certain sounds and/or signs has an established significance which is
familiar to the sender and the receiver of the information and so can be understood. Based on
exactly the same principle, all genetic information likewise has a precise grammar, that is to
say a code system:
A) The four nucleic bases which occur – A, T, C, G – make up the system of signs.
B) In the DNA code system it is laid down that three consecutive nucleic bases will
invariably encrypt a particular amino acid. Biology speaks, in this connection, of a "triplet"
– for example, GGA. In all, the genetic language includes 64 of these triplets. It is an
extremely remarkable fact, incidentally, that
"only
one genetic grammar" (German) has been realized in the whole of animated nature!
C) A triplet of this kind gives instructions to the ribosome (the protein factory of the
cell) to produce a quite specific amino acid. Thus the GGA triplet stands, in the code system of
the genetic language, for a glycerine molecule.
D) If a triplet from the genetic code is read out in the ribosome, the latter produces
the appropriate amino acid. The correct sequence of hundreds, and often thousands of these amino
acids (each of them likewise based on an exact genetic code) is what creates the structure of a
protein molecule.
E) The final objective of the genetic code is the creation of a bodily structure capable
of supporting life, in which quadrillions of protein molecules are not just created – they
also have to be spatially arranged in exactly the right way and interlinked with one another.
And all these working instructions are stored, based on a precisely defined grammar, in our DNA.
Nothing here happens by chance, it is all exactly programmed in to the system.
Our computer languages, similarly, only exist because human beings (endowed with spirit,
intelligence and will) have considered them. Nowhere has a computer language or a computer
program come into being of its own accord. On the contrary, at the start of every chain of
information we will always find a creative spirit. In the case of computer languages, this is of
course the human being who has developed the grammatical rules. The idea of evolution, on the
other hand, postulates that the genetic code, and so the genetic language have come into being
somehow or other – but at all events quite by chance – of their own accord. This is a
completely implausible conception, seeing that we cannot find confirmation of it anywhere.
The above law of nature permits us to draw conclusions. It has further
implications which find repeated confirmation, and so too have the validity of natural law. Like
any natural law, these would be subject to refutation on the basis of just one counter-example:
1. Matter alone cannot produce coded information.
2. No code can exist except by an agreement based on free will.
3. Coded information always has a grammar that has been defined by the originator.
4. At the start of every information chain we will find a spiritual (intelligent)
originator.
5. Coded information can never arise through chance or as a result of extended time
periods.
The thought system of evolution, then, could only function if there were a possibility that
chance processes can give rise to coded information – this is a fundamental condition, which
no evolutionist can get around! But in fact reality shows us that information is not a property
of matter – it must always be added to it from without. Matter and energy are only carriers of
information. For example, when insects transport pollen from flowers, this is first and foremost
a process involving the transmission of information (genetic information, that is); the matter
that forms part of the process is irrelevant in this context.
Likewise the chemical equation for photosynthesis, which is to be found in any school chemistry
textbook, suffers from a major defect: it doesn’t work! This is because the chemical
substances that are involved, left to themselves, are not going to organize anything at all,
never mind how much solar radiation they receive. Photosynthesis only functions when we add the
information about how, with the help of solar energy, oxygen can be produced from carbon
dioxide. This information is stored in every grass blade and every leaf on the planet – a
principle of genius which no engineer or biologist is capable of replicating.
Nor, for that matter, is any scientist able to explain what "life" actually is. We can only
point to this or that feature of life, but the theory of evolution does not have the slightest
explanation of the
way in which living being can arise out of dead matter (PDF German). In this sphere of
reality as well, there is accordingly just one natural law that applies – one that the
microbiologist Louis Pasteur recognized, and it finds repeated practical confirmation: "Life
can only come from life". But the question that then unavoidably suggests itself here is –
where did the first living being come from?
And so all philosophers and all edifices of thought that fail to take account of these natural
laws surrounding us on all sides are automatically bound to come to incorrect conclusions,
seeing that they simply pass over important laws of nature and so rest on faulty assumptions.
These regularities of natural law based on coded information, formulated here in
a simple and consciously assailable way, have been proved by experience an infinite number of
times and have "not
been refuted by experiment in any of the world’s laboratories" (PDF German). Likewise any
reader of this text who wants to put them to the test in an every day context will be compelled
to confirm their truth over and over again. An unprejudiced person will soon be able to draw the
conclusion from this that the theory of life’s coming into being through evolution is only a
theoretical scaffold, which in practical terms would simply be impossible..
And so it just makes logical sense to ask whether life may not after all originate from a
goal-oriented process of creation. And it is precisely this principle of which we find a report
in the Bible. For here the source of information which is necessary, from the point of view of
information science, as the precondition for any kind of information (including biological
information) is mentioned right on the very first page: "In the beginning God created…"
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, insinuates – as shown earlier – that the coded
information found in living beings does not require a transmitter of the information. This
statement finds abundant refutation in our daily experience of the above-mentioned natural
regularities. So today the laws of nature relating to information supply us with the strongest
arguments for the creation of living beings through creation. As these implications apply to any
kind of information we care to choose, one thing here becomes absolutely evident:
The genetic code represents a mental idea.
The natural laws on coded information referred to above thus hit the
Achilles heel of the theory of evolution, and put its scientific end. Or to put it in a different way – anyone who thinks it conceivable that life has
come into being through chance processes of evolution believes in a "perpetuum mobile of
information". Further more detailed explanations on this topic may be found with the actual
founder of information theory based on natural law, Professor Werner Gitt, in his book "Am
Anfang war die Information – Herkunft des Lebens aus der Sicht der Informatik" ["In the
Beginning was Information – Origin of Life from the Viewpoint of Information Science"],
published by Hänssler.
But if the adherents of evolution are still not going to be convinced, it shows yet again how
this thought system is associated with a deeply rooted ideological commitment to atheism –
which brings great danger in its train. We can now ask why it is that people profess the theory
of evolution with such one-sided obstinacy, and the answer is easy to find – godless people do
not accept any kind of world picture necessitating a Creator: they do not want it to be true
that one day they are going to have to render account for their entire life to an almighty
Judge. And yet this is what each and every one of us will have to do. And although patent
illogicality is the only alternative to a Creator, many people have decided against God and
prefer to follow unreason. The following quotations from convinced evolutionists show this very
plainly:
"How can inorganic molecules receive and pass on biological information
in such a way that a primeval cell can come into being? In itself this is an insoluble problem."
Professor Manfred Eigen (born 9 May 1927 in Bochum, biochemist /
biophysical chemist, awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1967)
"It is absurd and absolutely senseless to believe that a living cell can
come into being of its own accord, but all the same I believe it, because I just cannot imagine
it any other way."
Ernest Kahane (17.11.1964, biochemist, lecture at CERN, near Geneva)
"The theory of evolution is unproven and unprovable. But we believe in it because it is the only alternative to the act of creation by a God, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur B. Keith (1866-1955, Scottish anatomist and
anthropologist)
"We adhere to the side of science, in spite of the evident absurdity of
some of its constructs… because we cannot allow God to get his foot in the door."
Professor Richard C. Lewontin (09.01.1997, evolutionary biologist,
The New York Review)
"The theory of evolution is a theory generally accepted worldwide –
not because it has been possible to prove it, but because it is the only alternative to
creation, which is something we do not want to believe in."
Professor James Dewey Watson (born 6 April 1928 in Chicago,
biochemist, awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1962)
The cartoon below is an excellent illustration of the dilemma in which science
finds itself. On the one side we see gigantic technical resources being put into listening to
the universe to see if it gives off an intelligent signal. On the other, the coded information
in every single cell is simply ignored. This inconsistency reveals where the real problem lies
– on the level of the philosophy behind the science!
"At some point we are going to pick up a tiny coded signal – and then we will know with certainty that there is intelligence out there, because coded information cannot come into being by chance." | "The precisely coded information contained in every cell would fill many books… but we know with certainty that life was not created by an intelligence." |
But in spite of all the critical voices of our godless era, many highly regarded
scientists have admitted to the obvious, and have had the courage to speak out publicly and
plainly against the evolutionary model. One of these is Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry
at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. To begin with he accepted the scientific theory
of evolution in its entirety. But gradually he began to question evolution fundamentally, and
later came to the conviction that we can find at the biochemical level evidence for the
existence of irreducibly complex systems. In his world-famous book, "Darwin’s Black
Box", he advances the following very trenchant argument:
"In the course of the last four decades, modern biochemistry has
uncovered the secrets of the cell. The knowledge we now have of life at molecular level has been
patched together from countless experiments in which proteins have been cleaned, genes cloned,
electron microscope pictures created, cell cultures developed, structures defined, sequences
compared, parameters varied and controls carried out. Articles have been published, results
tested, recensions written, dead ends explored and new points of view investigated. The outcome
of these accumulated efforts of cell research, these investigations of life at molecular level,
is a clear, vocal and penetrating cry: ‘Design, plan!’
This result is so unambiguous and so important that it has to be classified as one of the
greatest ever achievements in the history of science. The observation that life follows an
intelligent plan is as far-reaching in its implications as the observation that the earth
revolves around the sun, that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in
quantum packages. This great victory, which has been achieved at the high price of decades of
unremitting effort, might – one would be entitled to expect – have scientists popping
champagne corks in laboratories all round the world. This triumph of science should call forth
cries of Eureka from tens of thousands of throats, should be the occasion for applause and
celebration, perhaps even an excuse for taking the day off.
But no champagne bottles have been uncorked, no hands have been heard to applaud. Instead, the
pure complexity of the cell is surrounded by a peculiar embarrassed silence. When the subject
comes up in public, feet begin to scrape on the floor and breathing becomes a trifle labored. In
a private context people’s reactions are rather more relaxed. Some admit openly to the
obvious, but then look down to the floor, shake their heads and leave it at that. Why does the
scientific community not avidly take up its most sensational discovery ever? Why is the
observation of design being handled with intellectual kid gloves? The dilemma is this – if one
end of the elephant has the label ‘Intelligent design’ attached to it, the other end might
well be given the label ‘God’."
Source: Was
Darwin nicht wusste [What Darwin didn’t know]
To all evolutionists of this world.To deny humanity its origin from God’s hands, claiming
that it descends from apes, is not only a violation of human rights. In
this way, the ape becomes the progenitor of the human being and God the
"ape". The "God" of evolutionists.
The first of the above human rights violations only joins in a series that are
committed at any time around the world. The latter, however, is unique in this world. And as sin
against the Holy Spirit, it is the ticket to hell. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them. Gen 1,26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the
sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth." 1,27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them. 1,28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
|
"My religious feeling consists in humble admiration of the infinitely higher spirit that
reveals itself in the little that we – with our feeble and volatile understandings – are able to
grasp of reality." (Albert Einstein)
The greatest shame to humanityIt is the greatest shame to humanity that researchers of
genius, like Albert Einstein and Max Planck, who developed
and researched relativity theory and quantum theory respectively, showed
no interest whatever in researching into the Word of God, the Bible –
leaving this task to people with very much less research talent. |
Footnotes
[1]The laws of thermodynamics
1st law: the law of energy conservation
In a closed system, energy can be transformed from one form into another, but it cannot be either
created or destroyed.
2nd law: the spontaneous sequence of reactions
Every change to a closed system is associated with an increase in the entropy of the system. Or
alternatively – a spontaneous change to a system can only be counteracted by the input of additional
energy!
3rd law: absolute entropy at absolute zero (0° K) (Nernst’s theorem)
The entropy of every substance approaches zero when the temperature, other things remaining equal,
approaches zero.
[2]Quoted from R. B. Livingston: Brain
Circuitry Relating to Couples Behavior.