Evolutionary Thinking and Fake Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is interesting to me that many of us who reject the concept of space aliens and unbelievable science in fantastic fiction still tend to put our disbelief in the stable and watch or read these things. Computer simulations can be like high-end video games, totally dependent on programming. Add to these the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. My current favorite is Stargate SG-1.

Image credits: The one on the tablet is an artist's conception from NASA,
the larger image and modification from PhotoFunia

The idea of "you may be just a brain in a vat" has been around a spell. You know how it goes: we're imagining everything we experience but nothing is real. This idea, as well as those "we're living in a computer simulation" concepts, give rise to a passel of science fiction movies like The Matrix, They Live (well, it sort of fits), and others. I have to add a science fiction short story that I read (I disremember the author and title, sorry) where people realized that when things were going wrong, it was because our lives are the dream of another entity. Somehow, they figured out a way to lull it back to sleep; centuries for us were a few hours for the dreamer.

When playing some shooter games, I occasionally get bored and become Mr. Indestructible so I can hurt the evil critters up personal-like. Some have suggested that we are living in a computer simulation by an advanced alien civilization. Mighty smart folks to do that, huh? They even came up with all of the specified complexities of life that refute evolution, as well as the amazingly complex DNA molecule. The latest version is similar to the story of lulling the sleeper back to dreamland because we don't want the aliens to know that we know. (Mayhaps they'll bring on the Meteor of Death because they're bored with their game.) There have to be limits to dealing with "what if...?", old son, and get back to the real world.

The whole thing is clearly based on atheistic and evolutionary thinking. There is no Creator, no purpose, no value to life. From that comes the ideas that there is no reality, and morality is relative (postmodernism). One concept is that even though evolution is supposed to explain everything, it is also deceiving us. Yes, evolution is once again being treated like an entity, not a blind, pitiless, impersonal force. 

Materialists deny God and define "reality" on their terms. Like some tinhorns have redefined lying to mean, "I disagree with some people, so I call them 'liars' even though I cannot prove deception and want to use an emotive word". Reality (like honesty, logic, and science itself)  is defined by God on his terms. People who deny his existence or authority have no say in the matter. God has made himself known in the Bible, and its in everyone's best interest to find out what he has to say.

This article was inspired by a pair of segments in The Briefing podcast by Dr. R. Albert Mohler. Although other writers will probably delve into these subjects, I would like to commend you to his podcast (free to listen online or download, or read the transcript). Click here for The Briefing on Thursday, August 22, 2019. Look for "Could the Cosmos Just Be a Computer Simulation? The Threat of Meaningless Existence vs. the Sure and Certain Hope of Biblical Realism" and "Leading Scientists Claim We Live in a Subjective Reality: Are We Gripped by a Collective Delusion about the Material World?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Jupiter has a Purpose

We have several large planets in our solar system, the gas giants, and Jupiter is the largest in the herd. It has 79 satellites, two of which are larger than our own moon. Speaking of which, the gravitational effect of our own moon is obvious, but massive Jupiter and its own moons also have an effect.

Credit: NASA / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Scientists and other wonder why those planets are out yonder. Indeed, it has been learned that the outer planets keep the solar system in balance. Jupiter's gravity is powerful (as indicated before) and it helps protect Earth from asteroids and such. For that matter, one flamed out over there on August 7, 2019. Seems mighty clear that our Creator put it there as not only a stabilizing presence, but as a kind of cosmic vacuum sweeper to protect us.

Some secular scientists were none to keen on the protector idea, trying to force in come other slant on cosmic evolution. They borrowed a discredited idea of Velikovsky that the outer planets formed elsewhere and then slipped into the solar system illegally. These scientists have computer simulations. As we have seen before, simulations are based on what is programmed using numerous presuppositions; important data can easily be omitted by design or poor planning. 

Although the author of the article featured below is a brilliant creationist, I was disappointed that he was cheering for intelligent design and left praise to our Creator (who is our Redeemer) out of it for the post part. Even so, the article is very interesting.

A cover story in New Scientist on May 25 discusses the Juno spacecraft, an “audacious mission circling Jupiter’s poles” that arrived in 2016 and is schedule to orbit Jupiter until 2021. In this article, writers Leah Crane and Richard Webb give a remarkable role to the largest planet that has worked out for our benefit. They state that Jupiter is “the biggest and perhaps most important planet in the solar system…. And might even ultimately be responsible for life on the earth.” To understand why, we must look at the solar system as a functioning unit, and not as a haphazard grouping of planets independently operating separately. The study of the solar system as a system has increasingly supported the conclusion that life is not about just being in the “habitable zone,” but is intricately connected with the arrangement of all the other planets.

To read the rest, click on "Why Did God Create Jupiter?" You may also like "The Joy of Jupiter" and the article linked from there.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

The Life-Giving Blood

The outlaw decided to slap leather with the marshal, but he came out on the losing end. The town doctor needed to stop the bleeding to keep him alive. Way back when, the barbaric practice of bloodletting was used to drain off supposedly bad blood. Too much bloodletting led to the death of George Washington. We are plainly told in Leviticus 17:11 that the life is in the blood.

Credit: Pixabay / allinonemovie

When we have accidents with sharp things, we see blood. However, there is a great deal more to it than a river of red. There are many components involved doing various specific and complex activities. The cells have to travel a great deal and they even change their shape to fit into tight places, then take on their proper shape afterward.

A mother and her unborn child can have completely different blood types.

Many great scientists (many of the Christians and even creationists) have studied the stuff, building on the work of others. One of the great pioneers is Antony van Leeuwenhoek, who contributed to microscopy, refuted spontaneous generation, and was fascinated by studying and drawing blood cells.Joseph Jackson Lister improved on Antony's work and inventions, then others followed. I reckon these pioneers of microscopy would be thrilled with the equipment we have today.



Blood cells clean up our system, fight disease and infections, and is important for medical diagnosis and treatment. Although it seems like the phlebotomist is taking quite a bit out of my arm, it is actually a small amount to test for various things. Basement Cat was recently sick (she's thirteen years old, so we're not casual about things) and had blood work done. Not nearly as much was taken, but the results were very good; I was surprised by the number of things the veterinarian could investigate. The power and irreducible complexity of the blood cannot be the products of random evolution. They exist by the plan of the Master Engineer.

The life is is in the blood. Eternal life is also in blood — that shed by Jesus, our Creator who took human form for our redemption. He bled and died, and was bodily raised from the dead for our salvation.

It takes about 60 seconds for all the blood in your body to complete its journey. It travels from your heart to your extremities and returns, there and back again. Blood moves with the rapid current of the great arterial rivers and through the smallest capillary creeks. William Harvey first noticed circulation (1628) through the heart into arteries and veins; however, he could not see how they connected since he did not have a microscope. The man who first described this was Anton van Leeuwenhoek about 46 years later (1674). Then, J. J. Lister and Thomas Hodgkin described the rouleaux formation or stacking of RBCs through a capillary bed. All of these men mentioned above were committed Christians.

. . .

Knowledge of the blood and circulatory system gives us insight into spiritual, biological, and clinical applications. Blood reveals much about the majesty of our Creator and Master Craftsman, irreducible complexity, and the health or disease state of the human body. Capillaries are the smallest blood vessels through which blood cells can move through in single file. This blood vessel network knitted with lymphatic capillaries shows an interwoven complexity, thus revealing the fearfully and wonderfully made . . . In this article, we also show a biblical worldview and notable Christians who expounded the biblical concept that “Life is in the Blood.”

To read the full article, click on "Life Is in the Blood".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Geological Unconformities and the Flood

What are unconformities? They are the nonconformists of geology. No, they are not people, but instead are rock formations that do not fit the deep time uniformitarian presumptions of secular (and compromising Christian) geologists. In fact, geologists have several categories but not a whole heap of agreement on the things.

A view of the Grand Canyon, with the Great Unconformity visible
Credit: US Geological Survey / Alex Demas (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Geology has a deep time stratigraphy approach built in. Americans use several different kinds of unconformities, but the British do not recognize them. (So much for scientific consensus, huh?) Unconformities are not outliers, but cover large areas and are rather common. Secularists cannot adequately explain them, but the catastrophic deluge of the Genesis Flood offers the best fit.

An important distinction between diluvial and uniformitarian geology is their contrary interpretive approach to unconformities. Uniformitarian geology has long emphasized unconformities as repositories of all the time that cannot reasonably be attributed to the strata. But that interpretive framework would be unworkable if most unconformities formed during the Flood. Diluvial geology must focus on the physical interplay of hydraulics, tectonics, and sedimentology to investigate the formation of erosional surfaces of all scales.

To finish reading, click on "The meaning of unconformities".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

The Tyranny of Consensus Science

Something we often hear about in discussions of science is consensus. While that can be useful in some situations, it is not helpful in science. In fact, consensus is used to censor evidence that is contrary to the view of the majority. Anti-creationists often claim that microbes-to-materialist evolution is "settled science" and appeal to a consensus (as do other people with an agenda), as if that settles the matter under discussion.

Credit: Unsplash / Pedro Lima

Climate change alarmists really take the rag off the bush by appealing to their selected authorities and becoming irate when contrary scientific evidence is presented. (Indeed, I have been called a "science denier" and a "bigot" for presenting refutations.) Global warming alarmists have been proven wrong repeatedly, such as in this article about the prediction that the Maldives and other areas would be under water by now.

Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", then post news about heat waves as evidence of climate change — while ignoring news of record low temperatures from a few weeks back. Some even assert that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. Whatever you say, Hoss. 

via GIPHY

Chris Plante has a couple of quick reports about climate change wackiness. The site gets on the prod about ad blockers, so if you want to here there, you need to pause them or something, then click here and head to the 2 hours, 45 minutes, 55 seconds mark if the link doesn't go there like it's supposed to.

Embryonic stem cells were all the rage a few years ago and a spurious "consensus" was used to support abortion for this research. Today, adult stem cells are more beneficial as well as ethical.

Fun facts: a flat earth was never consensus science, nor is it taught in the Bible.

"Consensus science" is actually a means of furthering political agendas, and its adherents are often tyrannical. They have particular antipathy toward biblical creationists, pro-lifers, and climate change skeptics. Evidence and rational arguments they dislike are suppressed, and those who disagree tend to be quirted until they get in line with the majority. This is not the spirit of scientific inquiry, old son, but a means of maintaining the status quo of those with the money, power, and majority. The article featured below is from 2009 but is just as relevant today — if not more so.

In battle, one clever military tactic is to focus enemy troops' attention on a spectacular frontal assault so they will overlook a deadly side attack. This approach works in other arenas, as well.

On March 9 [2009], President Barack Obama ordered that federal tax money be used to promote medical research through harvesting the stem cells of, and thus destroying, human embryos. There has been much discussion about the medical ethics of this order and the government's increased power to destroy human life for "scientific" progress, but in reality these debates, while important, drew attention away from a serious analysis of the words of the president's speech. His order was actually a directive for "restoring scientific integrity," and stem cells served as the needed pretext.

. . . preserving "scientific integrity" would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy.

How? By empowering an atheist scientific elite who will decree--without debate and by consensus opinion only--the scientific validity of all bioethical issues, not just the killing of embryos for research. In doing this, Mr. Obama has capitalized on two trends in the scientific community: the rise of "consensus science," and the dominance of atheism among the scientific elite.

To read the entire article, click on "Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite". Also worth your time is "Why consensus science is anti-science".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Psychology, Morality, and the Bible

Warning: The post and some of the links contain mature content. Discretion advised.

Know why there are so many schools (systems) of psychology? Because none of them completely work. Years ago, I had a therapist that used the REBT approach developed by Albert Ellis. That had some benefit, but he also had me doing "power animals" and other things from Native American mythologies. No good. While it can be helpful to talk to someone with knowledge, the root problems are not addressed in secular systems.

Adapted from an image by Gerd Altmann at Pixabay

Sigmund Freud got the ball rolling for psychology. He and other secularists have rooted it in evolutionary thinking, so they take naturalistic approaches to morality and mental health, denying our Creator in the process. (Sometimes people have better results through time and discussion instead of spending mucho dinero for numerous sessions with a therapist. The best approach would be to use biblical counseling.) Evolutionary psychology gave us the lobotomy holocaust. Like so many other areas, leftist agendas have hijacked psychology and psychiatry — and these are not actually sciences.

Sure, practitioners and advocates refer to them as sciences, but they do not actually fit the definition. Some scientific approaches are utilized, giving them a veneer of science. Psychiatry and psychology are having credibility problems, even though they can be beneficial to some people. We have two articles for you to examine. The first one contains the mature content.

• There are critics of psychiatry who realize that the field is "in crisis" and things need to be fixed. Misdiagnosing patients is an old problem, and psychiatrists pretend to be scientists.
• Since they figure that humans are just evolved animals, biological psychology defines "normal" by what is seen in the natural world. 
• False views of sexual orientation and assorted perversions are forced on Christians and the public in general under the guise of "science". Those of us who reject trends are considered the ones that need therapy, even though those who engage in aberrant behavior are a microcosm of the population, and have been so for millennia. 

Brace yourself, and read the details at "Psychology Co-Ops ‘Science’ to Fight Biblical Morality". Don't forget to come back for the second installment, which is less alarming but still has shocking implications.

Howdy! Glad you could come back. There are some practices in the mind "sciences" that should trouble people who are concerned with ethics and morality.

• Clinical reports are exaggerated in abstracts, and professionals often read those instead of the full reports. (I have seen similar things where someone "refutes" creationist material by citing an abstract, but that is really just promises and intentions of the authors, not actual evidence for something.) Do you want your disorder medication "cocktail" recommended by someone who has not done serious study?
• There seems to be a conflict of interest where people make big money on the psych celebrity lecture circuit.
• Cases of misconduct going back many years.

To read the article, click on "More Criticisms Raised Against Psycho-Science". By the way, I stopped seeing therapists and taking antidepressants years ago.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Book Review — Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

My obtaining Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism by Paul Ross was a bit unusual. A link was provided to a download, and had it converted for my Kindle device. After I had gone through it (the book was rather short), I contacted the author for a bit of information.

His reply included the Australian equivalent of, "Whoa there, pilgrim! Where did you get that? It's not the final product!" So I ponied up the money and got my own copy all nice and legal-like. This means that there is no disclaimer, Mr. Ross didn't give me a copy for reviewing or anything.

The real version of this book is much substantial than the preliminary copy, and is far better. However, I thought a Table of Contents would have been mighty helpful like the other version had — especially now when I'm working on this here review. Ross also provided 36 references. If someone was thinking that Paul was simply making things up as he went along (a notion that could come from someone who did not pay any attention to the material), the references should give lie to that notion.

This is the first book of a planned series. It is not a huge volume, and he intended to make it short enough to read in one sitting. That would be a good thing to do, but it's not exactly a pamphlet, so you might want to get comfortable. I think your time will be invested quite well. I was able to spot his presuppositional apologetics approach, and he also uses evidence. (Contrary to the claims of detractors, presuppositional apologists do use evidence, and evidentialists do have presuppositions.) The reasoning is straightforward and sometimes rather blunt, but he gives the necessary unvarnished truth.*

As usual, some of my own thoughts are mixed in with the review; the book sparked my thinking many times.

In the introduction, Paul Ross makes his intentions clear and gives the reader some thing to think about:

This book was primarily written to address the materialism of our times. What I mean by that is the emotional, psychological and intellectual rejection of God in favor of rampant self-determination. This rejection may manifest in the form of indifference, or it may surface in the form of open and defiant hostility—as in the case of contempt for all things divine—but, at the end of the day, both expressions are just two sides of the same coin. I also wrote this book to reveal the fundamental weaknesses of the materialistic position and to expose its unrelenting failure to answer any of the questions that ultimately matter.

Let the reader understand that materialism is not used in the sense of "accumulating a passel of possessions", but instead, it is the philosophy that the material world is all that exists. It is used to underpin evolution as the secular mythology of origins and a lifestyle for atheists. We are given some history on how materialistic thinking has been detrimental to civilization, including the sexual "revolutions" where promiscuity and various perversions have been not only accepted, but promoted.

Materialistic dogmatism is discussed with an emphasis on atoms-to-author evolution. Antony Flew was an ardent atheist, but he changed his mind near the end of his life because he was forced to admit that the universe was designed. (Sadly, he apparently died a Deist, therefore would be just as lost as any other unrepentant sinner.) Most materialists insist on ignoring the evidence for creation all around them (Rom. 18:18-23). They cannot justify their rebellion scientifically or philosophically.

Materialistic explanations do not adequately make sense of the most common phenomena of human experience, such as the phenomenon of consciousness. In fact, it has never been shown—or demonstrated—how biochemical processes can transform into conscious subjective experiences. It’s simply claimed that they do, somehow, someway. Neither do materialistic explanations explain the existence of a conscience, moral intuitions or the propensity towards spirituality. Nor can the materialist show how impersonal, mindless matter and energy can write its own informational software code, as manifested in every molecule, atom and elementary particle.

Paul goes on to discuss a subject that I have presented on several occasions: consciousness. No naturalistic philosophies can explain it. For that matter, mathematics, logic, and even science itself cannot be explained without God! (This is my statement, not his.) "There simply is no materialistic model that can explain the phenomenon of consciousness in matter. It’s a complete mystery and enigma for the materialistic paradigm, and the reason why the materialistic model has been unsuccessful in explaining this gigantic enigma is because materialism is false." He is correct here, too.

Some materialists claim that the universe is better without God, more beautiful and with more grandeur. The sense of awe is something else that is immaterial and for which materialists cannot account. Atheists are being inconsistent (as usual) with such statements. "...the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe basically boils down to an assertion that ‘stuff happens’." (Has he been reading David Coppedge about the "Stuff Happens Law"?) It's a lot of stuff that happened, and by chance arranged itself into all the specified complexity and beauty we see around us.

I think I have given you enough information to help you realize that Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism will prompt you to think and provides important information about how materialism causes damage to rational thought and to society.

Ross goes on with additional examples of the infestation of naturalism in society, including universities (which were started by Christians) and so forth. I recommend Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism.

You may want to get to know Paul Ross a bit better. I happened across a link to an interview with him, and it discusses the book, atheism, and Paul's missionary work. Try to ignore the comment about the US Postal Service "motto" that the interviewer made which is wrong on several levels. Other than that, give a listen at this link.

*Although Mr. Ross is unashamedly a creationist, he told me that he avoids discussions of the age of the earth because he considers it divisive. However, truth is divisive. The Virgin Birth, substitutionary atonement, even the Trinity are important doctrines that can be divisive. Recent creation supports biblical doctrines. I suggest three articles on this: "Who Is Jesus and What Did He Believe About Creation?, "‘But it’s divisive!’", and "Genesis: Real, Reliable, Historical".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!