Science Jargon

there is knowing and then there is believing you know

Chance or Design?

The origins of life:  There are only two choices.  Whether you know it or not you likely have a strong faith in one of them – which is it?  By random chance or purposeful design?

Self-replicating cells are one thing, but the information first required to dictate the process, and the complex mechanisms/machines then necessary to perform the physical actions are entirely another thing.  An amazing thing.  And according to modern science these genetic robots came about by random chance events?  Talk about a scam.

This is a very well done video by Dr. Walter J. Veith on this subject explaining just how farfetched the idea of chance really is.  But you be the judge.

For more information see From Intelligent Design or Stupid Slime?

Believers in God Hate Science?

Okay, here’s one thing I get sick of hearing:  Evolutionists who spew forth foul words mixed with a fishy confident breath stating that creationists, Christians, God lovers and such “believers” of angels, miracles, Jesus and anything supernatural somehow must not like science.  Love God, hate science – like the two can’t go together!

That is the Big Bad Breath of Bigotry talking – every time you hear such nonsense.  It’s a personal attack designed only to label believers in the supernatural as stupid – like we must be “uneducated” and unknowing of anything from the Holy Sector of Science.  And by default then, only scientists and the truly “educated” are the elite who will dispense all truth to the common folk.  Well, you elite whoever you are, we’re not going to stoop to this level of snobbery.

Come on, who doesn’t appreciate science!  People of all faiths certainly get a kick of out science, the new discoveries and spinoff technologies.  And do you really think that no scientists believe in the supernatural?  Of course they do.

So then, here is what really bites:  Poor science that masquerades as good science, unprovable theories purposely presented as fact which don’t even pass the snicker test, attacks on any theories that might be seen as religious or supernatural, or personal attacks on the character and intelligence of “people of faith” simply because they have faith in something other than the unprovable evolutionary belief that stunning women evolved from sea worms.

Out of love I pray:  May God open your eyes (and mine, to any dumb things I’m doing)!

Astronomy Rules

How sure are we, really, that the earth is billions of years old?  I just watched an interesting video, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, narrated by formal military space program engineer Spike Psarris.  Mr. Psarris, a former atheist and evolutionist as well, detailed in the video a lot of legitimate cautions over modern conventional thinking about how our solar system formed.

Bottom line, scientists admit that today they have essentially no more answers to how the universe came about than they did a hundred years ago – if anything, more unanswered questions.  The more technology has allowed us to probe deeper and deeper into the universe, the more unexpected discoveries have been made – discoveries that bring more into question the common theories of the beginnings of the cosmos.

One interesting point is the discovery of active volcanos on moons (including possibly our own) that have been considered “cold and dead” due to the eons of time passed since formation.  Yet active volcanos on theoretically “dead” objects would question the real age of the universe, would they not?

Other issues involve:

  • The fact that some planets still have magnetic fields (strongly indicating a molten core) when  they should have been “cold” eons ago
  • How the giant gas planets or the sun could have even formed from a gaseous cloud (noting that gas pressure in the vacuum of space is generally a greater force than gravity so another force would have had to condense the gas)
  • Why comets, which have a life span in only the thousands of years, are still present today
  • How all the water got on earth when comets are chemically different in ingredients
  • Why the planets’ plane of orbit around the sun varies by about seven degrees from the planer axis of rotation of the sun (they should be lined up)
  • Planets and moons whose surface does not match the expected number (far less than) of hits by meteorites.

There are many other surprises in our own solar system, too numerous to go into in this short blog.  But I highly recommend watching the video, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy.  For more information go to their website,  Don’t discount this information because you think they are just trying to push their pro-creation agenda. Regardless of whether they are or not, the information presented is compelling.

Similarly compelling is seeing what the sky looked like 2000 years ago.  Does it coincide with biblical events?

Statistical Analysis

We know that throughout history there have been sightings of, and spiritual encounters with, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, even Jesus and God.  There have been healings and miracles and other types of personal experiences.  Yes, there are plenty of false reports from people wanting attention.  But there are a lot of credible people having experiences too.  I would be the first to agree that these experiences are difficult, if not impossible, to put to the scientific test.

If we were to look at the statistical significance of such events, however, surely on the whole they are considered statistically significant – a respectable percentage of these events are likely to have actually happened.  There is something to the eye witness accounts that, though not provable, can be shown statistically to be likely and therefore should not just merely be discounted altogether.

What about other statistical analyses? There are acceptable methods for calculating probabilities and performing statistical analysis and such methods are commonly used by scientists and engineers.  I’ve used them in my field as an engineer.  Using these methods, the probability of the earth being inhabitable at all or man evolving from sea worms or space dust has been calculated.  And, as you can guess, it is in the realm of impossible, mathematically speaking.

So here’s my quandary: These mathematical calculations of the earth being habitable or of man’s origins or of supernatural encounters, using scientifically accepted statistical analysis, are at odds with the broad claim that we evolved from sea worms (or whatever).  Quite frankly, I‘d bet on the math.

Do Pixels Reveal the Picture? is a website dedicated to explaining the various evidences for evolution.  On an intro to biology segment it explains that macroevolution (evolution from species to another species) cannot be observed but can be extrapolated from microevolution (evolutionary changes within a species), which has been observed.  It goes on to say “But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.  Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study

Many other fields of study are detailed, for example,  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.  This article and others on that website contain many compelling arguments worthy of notice.

This evidence, however good, represents just a relative few pixels in the whole high definition screen of life origins.  The individual pixel arguments, yes, could be argued as fact and are presented as such.  But the whole extrapolation, and that is what it is, that we can trace our origins back to sea worms and the like – this part is not fact.  This part of it is unprovable – it is extrapolated from the existing pixel-like evidences.

The high definition image of life origins cannot be revealed from the limited number of existing pixel arguments, however bright they may be.

Microevolution or Macroevolution?

I’ve read often that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are just brought on by creationists to muddy the waters.  But microevolution and macroevolution are not terms that come from creationists.  Evolutionists’ own gurus explain it quite well.

This is a quote from TalkOrigins ( “Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old — macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study.”

This is the main point: Macroevolution is interpolated from studying microevolution.  I totally agree that microevolution (changes within species) is observed and “proven” by scientific method, and these microevolution studies are observable, repeatable, and have good accuracy.  But it is in the inferences to macroevolution (which cannot be observed, just like God cannot be observed) that the uncertainties I talk about arise.

Just because evolution exists within species does not automatically mean species evolve to other species.  Yes, that is what science is trying to show, and there is so called evidence (such as common DNA), but it is not yet in the “proven” realm.  The species to another species part of it is not yet considered “fact of evolution” and that is why it is termed with accuracy of only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” (or something less than “proven”).   Evolutionists’ own publications indicate this.  This is where the confusion lies.  Why has this become the stumbling block for the public?

The Fact of Evolution

I took some heat for my recent post, The Exquisite Beauty of Women.  Do you not think the part about “our Neanderthal ancestors would have died in agony at a hollow dry tree knot” is at least a little bit funny?

That post was not meant to be a scientific discussion of evolution.  It was meant to be poking fun!  But yes, there was one serious point.  And that was to ask:  Can the lineage of beautiful women really be traced back to animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms?

Evolutionists will point out that evolution should not be viewed as a “ladder.”  Point taken.  The heart of the matter, though (at least for me), is the tree truck.  “A Brief History of Life” is nicely detailed in, with a caveat that “The material here ranges from some issues that are fairly certain to some topics that are nothing more than informed speculation.

I am often reminded that “evolution does not attempt to explain how life began” (this is referring to abiogenesis). Perhaps that’s true.  But science certainly wants to explain life all the way back to the first life form and that’s what I’m talking about.  “Animals start appearing prior to the Cambrian, about 600 million years ago” (, and by animals they’re referring to things that look like jellyfish, sea anemones, earthworms and those sort of things.

In all my posts about uncertainties in scientific observations, data, etc. (supported precisely by the caveat from Talk Origins above), my case rests with this very issue:  Should we not question when the “fact of evolution” is mistakenly applied to too wide a range of scientific observations/extrapolations, implying that there must be negligible uncertainty in some of these things when in fact only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” accuracy exists?  Please reread this paragraph because it is at the core of why many evolution claims should be seriously challenged.

So on the accuracy scale, where do statements such as this fall?: “Beautiful women can trace their lineage back to the first animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms.”  Yes, this macroevolution claim is extrapolated from microevolution scientific research, but what is the accuracy in doing so?  Not the highest accuracy that should be demanded for such an important claim.  And certainly not enough to be in the category fact of evolution.  “Fairly certain” is fine for some details, but not this one.

This has been my beef all along.

The Exquisite Beauty of Women

Here’s the kicker to boot evolution to the curb:  Women.  They embody an exquisite beauty and exotic mystery in a way that nothing else in the universe even comes close to.

What Are The Odds?

Is it sheer coincidence of nature that such exquisite beauty is man’s primary captivation?  Did women just happen to evolve into the object of man’s fascination?  Even sometimes more than God and everything else?

Argue all the evolutionist science mumbo jumbo you want about survival and reproduction and whatever but it is obvious common sense that women were designed for us!  They are beautiful, sexy, and gorgeous in a way that nothing else compares.  If they weren’t designed for us, there would be a big problem…

Chicken or the Egg?

What are the chances that women would have evolved to be beautiful to us at the same time we needed to mate with them?  Slim.  They couldn’t have evolved to be beautiful after our desire to reproduce; they had to be gorgeous from the start – otherwise the ugly ones would have been eaten and our Neanderthal ancestors would have died in agony at a hollow dry tree knot.  🙂

Anyone who doesn’t buy this might want to check their gonads – because they wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for women captivating man from the start.

How Come We’re Not All Models?

Consider this:  If evolution is true and women had to evolve from ugly before we would mate with them, how come there are still ugly ones after thousands or millions of years?  🙂

On the other hand, if women were created for us and man fell from grace and we have been degenerating ever since, it is truly amazing the beauties that exist today!  Wow, what Eve must have looked like!!!  Does that mean humans are getting uglier?  Hmmm…

But Really…

Okay, the arguments above are pretty silly – I’m really just messing around!

But I’m serious about this: Do you really think that such exquisite creatures evolved from apes or primordial soup or sea worms, totally by chance processes?  If so, please get a clue (read The Fact of Evolution).

Guys, let’s give credit where credit is due: Thank God for women. And thank you, God, for my beautiful wife.  What a keeper!

Edge of a Flat Earth’s Ocean

If we even think there is a possibility that the supernatural exists, yet though we can’t test it or prove it by traditional scientific methods, should we not go forward to establish the body of evidence for it anyway?

For if we insist on observable and measurable proof of God’s existence and, by doing so, conveniently eliminate God as a possible explanation for physical realities, then science regresses to a grand balancing act on the pronounced distant edge of a flat earth’s mysterious ocean.

Science has no avenue to disprove the existence of God, try as it might.  It does have ample opportunity to prove his existence, all depending on how you want to define acceptable scientific method and acceptable uncertainty – and therein lies the problem.

There are errors and/or uncertainties in all scientific observations, experiments, results and conclusions.  As a result, science has yielded conclusions that were flat out wrong at times and overturned by new information again and again.  That’s good – it is supposed to work that way; new information should supplant any prior less accurate data.   But often conflicting conclusions occur in the same time frame.

A great example of the uncertainties that cause scientific research to contradict itself repeatedly is nutrition and disease research.  One case in point is the egg.  Some scientists say eating eggs are good for you; others say they increase the risk of disease.  And then there is meat, dairy, wheat, tofu – some say it’s all good, some say not.  Such are the circles of claims for a host of other research involving foods, nutrition, health, disease treatment, evolution, creationism, and the list goes on.

Yet each conclusion is supposedly based on valid, controlled experiments performed with careful scientific methods (we know some are bogus, but many are not).  So why all the differing reports then?  It’s because of the errors, biases and/or experimental uncertainties that exist in all scientific observations, research, experiments, data, reports and conclusions.  So a lot of the conclusions are subjective or at least inaccurate.

There is much more uncertainty in scientific conclusions than people think, and that’s rarely discussed.  Evolution research is not immune to this.  That’s why we should question (or laugh) whenever it is stated as a fact that humans evolved from non-humans.  Such evolution has not been proven, cannot be proven, and therefore there is no need to disprove it.

Do Scientists Agree On Evolution?

Are you aware that not all scientific claims are supported by observable and measureable evidence?  If this weren’t true, then there would not be so much disagreement over so many scientific conclusions.

Supporters of evolution (common descent) have said that if common descent was not well supported scientifically, there would be many scientists clamoring to point out the drawbacks.  After all, there could be some fame in successfully refuting evolution.

The fact is, many scientists do not agree with the mechanisms of random mutation or natural selection, or at least they question the strength of the evidence for them.  Are you aware that over 800 Ph.D. level scientists (as of Dec 2011) have felt so adamantly about being wary of evolution theory that they have publicly put their reputations on the line by making bold statements concerning the evidence?  Statistically this is probably representative of just a portion of the scientists who actually think this way too, as many are reluctant to put their carriers in jeopardy by making a public statement about it.

Does this disprove evolution/common descent?  No.  I’m just saying that there are many credible scientists who question the adequacy of the evidence in supporting the evolutionary claims as fact.  If this carries no weight to believers in evolution then sorry – you can’t just ignore the opinion of many scientists.

On the other hand, science simply cannot eliminate data that supports existence of the supernatural just because it might contradict the theory of evolution.  Good science considers all possibilities and goes down all such roads.  Yet today there is a strong push that we all must just go down the evolution theory road.  To hold one theory above all others with a bias is just not good science at all.

How could we ever think that the supernatural/God isn’t real?  There is too much evidence.  Measurable?  Perhaps not.  Observable?  Absolutely.  And because there is a multitude of evidence to support that it is real, we’re fools not to pursue it.

Even some prominent atheists, like Thomas Nagel, are speaking out about the weak arguments for Darwinian naturalism.  A great review of Nagel’s book was done by William Dembski.  When will mainstream science start getting a clue and stop excluding God as a possibility behind life and the cosmos?

For more information on the dissent from Darwinism, see

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: