Summary of Book

Behind every world view issue lies an elephant.

Some Terms
Objective = true regardless of opinion or desire. Example: The moon exist
no matter how many people declare its non existence.
Subjective = desires or opinions not supported by external or logical
evidence. Example: Blue is a better color than Green esthetically. ( this
statement cant be proven logically or externally )

Morals = that which you ought and ought not to do. Example: You
ought to thank people for their kindness. ( Ought and Should mean
the same thing )
Preferences = a personal LIKE or DISLIKE. Example: I prefer soda
over water. ( notice that a preference is not the same as an ought. The two
are often conflated. )

Circular logic = a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they
are trying to end with. Example: How can we know that we are viewing the
world for how it really is ? If we answer with, because we are observing the
world, then we are arguing in a logical circle since the answer assumes
the reliability of our senses as justification for the reliability of our senses.
some things simply seem intuitive enough to assume them correct, without
any proof or evidence. Circular arguments can be tricky to spot, beware.
 Beyond a Reasonable doubt
VS Possible doubt / Bias vs Skepticism
Before I go any further I believe it worth while going over the
difference between reasonable doubt and possible doubt. As one reads
through the following arguments, one may continue to have doubts about
certain aspects for various reasons. Doubt is fine, however, to reject taking
a view merely because an argument does not eliminate all possible doubt
is illogical. If the measurement of proof we used for determining truth was
BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT, an infinite regress of needed
evidence would quickly ensue; whereby nothing could then be accepted as
true. In other words, if the elimination of all possible doubt was necessary
A-priori to making a rational decision, we would all but heel over dead
waiting for the enlightenment of absolute knowledge. Since we do not make
choices in life based on the elimination of all possible doubt, we should look
to a more realistic and practical methodology for a means of arriving at
truth. We can use the method of beyond a reasonable doubt to help us
choose between different competing truth claims. In a court room, evidence
is provided for and against a particular case; the jury are then to choose the
option which accounts for the most data with the least number of
assumptions. The evidence for or against a thing determines if that thing is
to be believed or rejected, not the eradication of all possible doubt.
Skepticism turns into bias when we hold onto concepts and world views
which run counter to the laws of logic, and thus counter to the evidence.
Careful consideration and study may be needed prior to arriving at a well
thought out choice. Avoiding study as to put off making an important choice
lands us in the willfully ignorant camp. Willful ignorance is the polite way of
saying, stupid by choice.
 Reasonable Faith VS Blind Faith.
Myths have a habit of outliving their originators. One such myth is the
claim that an unbridgeable gap resides between faith and science. With a
little careful thought however this myth is shown to be flawed. Everything
we believe about reality, is first filtered through the faith position which
asserts the axiom, reality can be known. This belief that external reality can
be known is an axiom. An axiom " is a statement that is taken to be true, to
serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. It
is impossible to prove reality can be known without invoking circular
argumentation. The belief that reality can be known is foundational for all
proceeding beliefs we hold about reality. It follows logically therefore, that
everything we as humans believe in, is believed by faith. The real conflict
therefore is not between faith and non faith, because no such dilemma
exist; the true conflict is rather between reasonable faith and blind faith.
Reasonable Faith involves the decision of acting or not acting based on the
available evidence to us. Blind faith by contrast, involves believing in things
despite any evidence, possibly even contrary to the evidences and every
day experiences.
For an example let's focus in on a position known as solipsism. There
are two versions that I am aware of. The first being the view or theory that
the self is all that can be known to exist. This definition of solipsism does
not exclude our reasonable faith in the existence of reality. This definition of
solipsism merely excludes our ability to claim that external reality exist with
absolute certainty. Descartes said, I think therefore I am. To ask wether
or not one exist requires thought, and thought requires existence.
Therefore we can know with absolute certainty that we exist; this is not the
same as saying we exist as we believe we exist; Such as in a real body in a
real world, with real people. This first definition of solipsism simply
underscores the fact that everything apart from our own existence is
believed by faith.
The second definition of solipsism states that solipsism is The
theory that only the self exists. This definition underscores the importance
of understanding the difference between reasonable faith and blind faith.
The individual who holds to this position is demanding absolute certainty
before they are persuaded in the existence of external nature. The solipsist
has made a crucial error in logic, can you spot it ? Does the solipsist have
absolute knowledge and certainty that the external universe does not
exist ? Nope. Yet the solipsist has chosen to believe none the less that
external reality does not exist. This position is inconsistent. The solipsist
demands absolute certainty to believe in the external universe, while
conveniently not requiring absolute certainty to disbelieve in the external
universe. This inconsistency is also known as a double standard. A double
standard is a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways.
So if we dont know if external reality exist with absolute certainty,
how can we know which view is true ? Simple, we use the measurement of
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT as discussed above. Is it
reasonable to rule out our every day experiences without a more powerful
counter argument against the truth value of our experiences ? NO ! We
believe in external reality not because we can prove external reality exist
with absolute certainty, but rather because it is the more reasonable
position based on what we do know. That my friends is reasonable faith.
Solipsism on the other hand qualifies as blind faith. The solipsist holds
views contrary to the observable evidence, while simultaneously applying a
double standard of reasoning for their position. The myth that states a
divide exist between science and faith is an elephant in the room.
 Understanding morals

Positive Argument for Morals ( Theistic )

1 ) A designer of the universe exist

2 ) There is a plan to the universe ( purpose )
3 ) There is a standard to live up to
4 ) some actions are more valuable than others in a particular context in
reality
Conclusion: Right and Wrong Exist.

Negative Argument for Morals ( Atheistic )

1 ) There is no designer of the universe

2 ) There is no plan to the universe ( purpose )
3 ) There is no standard to live up to
4 ) All actions are equally valid in any context in reality
Conclusion: NO RIGHT and NO WRONG exist.

Step three is the key element in both logical deductions. If an external

standard exist, so also external morals exist. If however no external
standard exist, so also no external morals exist. Also note that if an external
standard exist, a designer of the universe necessarily exist. If there is no
external standard however, a designer is no longer required to account for
the non existence of this external standard. I cant emphasize enough how
important this standard is, everything lives or dies on its existence or non
existence.
Question 1: Why does there need to be a designer in order for there to be a
standard ?

Answer: A standard ascribes value to actions. Values are mental

constructs. A standard therefore denotes a mind. A mind that creates is a
designer.

Question 2: Why cant this designer be us ? We have minds, and we

design.

Answer: If one denies an external standard to reality, they are stuck with all
actions being of equal value in reality. To claim that one action has more
value than another action when in reality all actions are equally valid, is to
be in direct contradiction with reality. Beliefs which do not reflect reality
classify as delusions. The standard must exist externally in order for us to
make true moral value statements. in order for the standard to exist
externally, a plan to the universe must exist externally; If there is a plan to
the universe, there must be a planner of that plan.

Question 3: But we create reality by creating this standard.

Answer: External reality was here before us, we cant create something
that predates us. A created belief that does not reflect reality is a delusion.

On the terms page I defined morals as, that which you ought and
ought not to do. If there truly is no external standard, it logically follows
all actions are equally valid in reality. If all actions are equally valid in reality,
it logically follows there is no way we ought and ought not to behave in
reality ( no morals. ) So if an external standard is eliminated from the onset,
oughts ( morals ) are thereby eliminated along with it. The problem arises
when this fact is ignored. It can be tempting to replace the external
standard with our own preferences as question three above attempted. On
the terms page I defined a preference as a personal LIKE or
DISLIKE. This is in fact the distinction between a moral and a preference;
a moral is external, whilst a preference internal. The distinction therefore is
between desires and obligations.
 It does not logically follow that because person " x " desires " z, " that
person " y " is therefore obligated to " z. " Person " y " is only obligated to "
z " if " z " is externally true. For example: if Person " X " desired bright
colors over dull colors, it would not logically follow that person " y " is
obligated to like bright colors over dull colors too. If person " x " stated a
fact about reality however, such as " atoms exist, " person " y " would be
obligated to accept this external fact; atoms do indeed exist. An obligation
is only binding on external truths. Therefore all obligation ( moral ) claims,
are external truth claims.
The term " subjective morality " is nonsensical. Obligations must be
externally true, thereby rendering morality objective. The term " subjective "
contradicts the term " morality. " The term " subjective morality " conflates
desires with obligations. The term " subjective morality " is a grand example
of the large scale confusion around the topic of morals. The belief in
Subjective morality constitutes as one of the elephants in the room.

Moral Insights

( The appeal to majority consensus in attempt to account for morality

amounts to the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Adding more
preferences does not turn a preference claim into a moral claim; anymore
than adding tea to your tea turns your tea into wine. Preferring cows over
sheep does not imply one ought to prefer cows over sheep, even if most
people do prefer cows over sheep. )

( In the Declaration of Independence we read, " We hold these truths to be

self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Jefferson was well aware that
morality required an external standard, therefore a creator. )

( Yeshua ( Jesus ) tells us what our external obligations are.

Matthew 22:36-40 " 36 Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in
the Law? 37 Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and
greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: Love your neighbor
as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments. " The moral standard is love.
 " When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is
right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but
because they do. " - GK Chesterton.

" ...fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs

improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. -CS Lewis

The Laws Of Logic by Jim Warner Wallace

All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-

existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. Youd
have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic
werent available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries.
Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every
day:
The Law of Identity
Things are what they are. A is A. Each thing is the same with itself
and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a
universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic
qualities or features.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
A cannot be both A and Non-A at the same time, in the same way and
in the same sense.Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the
same sense at the same time.
The Law of Excluded Middle
A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that
proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For
example, the claim that A statement is either true or false is either true or
false.
These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth
statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning
illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldnt even begin to
read or reason through this blog post if you didnt employ these laws. In
fact, youve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using
these laws. Theyre not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead,
objectively true. So, heres an important question: From where do the
transcendent, objective laws of logic come?
As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In
fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I
knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and
employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws
without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver?
(1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist
We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical
argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the
first place.
The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws
These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen
under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding
logical, immaterial thought processes.
The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent
The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or
backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply,
regardless of culture or geographic location.
The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind
The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they
precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans
were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, A could not have
been Non-A. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created
by humans.
(2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver
All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from
our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing
our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds.
But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought
processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind.
(3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind
Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual
Laws of Logic is God. The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial,
transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial,
transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we
commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.
The Christian Worldview accounts for the existence of the transcendent
Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent
standard of truth. The Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature of
God. God did not create these laws. They are a reflection of His rational
thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. You and I,
as humans, have the ability to discover these laws because we have been
created in the image of God, but we dont create or invent the laws.
( http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-
of-logic/.
Those who assert that appealing to God is logically irrational, have no
justification for the existence of objective laws of logic from which to assert
irrationality. Claiming rational superiority while rejecting God is yet another
elephant in the room.
 Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the
universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not
an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and
analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine
whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law,
intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
( http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php )
Intelligent design is not a God of the gaps argument, nor is it
creationism in disguise. Intelligent design does not attempt to tell us who or
what this designer is. One can accept intelligent design while still rejecting
God. Neil deGrasse Tyson ( American astrophysicist, cosmologist, author,
and science communicator ) is a well known secular scientist who believes
we live in a virtual reality of some sort, he is on record having said, its
very likely the universe is a simulation. Elon Musk ( Founder, Ceo and
CTO of Space X, CEO and produce architect of Tesla Motors ) takes this
view as well. Elon Musk said in an interview, there is a one in billions
chance were in base reality. He continued, " The strongest argument for
us being in a simulation . . . " Intelligent design is therefore held by both
atheists and theists.The myth that intelligent design is only creationism in
disguise, is yet another elephant in the room.
What is leading scientists and philosophers to the conclusion that the
universe is designed ? There is a very simple formula: Specificity +
complexity = design. This formula can be observed, repeated, and falsified
if false. This makes the design formula a scientific formula. The myth that
intelligent design is not science, is another elephant in the room.

What is Specified Complexity ?

Specified complexity refers to any structure whose complex order of

parts results in a function or meaning otherwise lost or changed if the order
of the parts that make up the structure is lost or changed. Specified
arrangements can come in two forms; simple and complex. The word
" simple " refers to any specified arrangement which is practically possible.
The term " complex " refers to any specified arrangement that is practically
impossible.
 " practically possible " and " practically impossible " refer to real world
likelihood; as opposed to " theoretically possible " which provokes wishful
sentiments. To differentiate between practically possible and practically
impossible, we can test the probability or improbability of any specified
sequence having occurred by chance. If the number of trials needed before
a sequence can be realistically realized surpasses the number of maximum
possible events that have transpired on planet Earth or in the Universe, we
can write such a sequence off as practically impossible.
I will use English to help illustrate this concept. Within the confines of
the english language, a specified sequence of letters must first be met prior
to any meaning being conveyed. The word " dog " is specified because the
arrangement of the three letters results in a meaning within the English
language. Specified three lettered sequences are not practically impossible
however, because they are not beyond the reach of unintelligent causation.
For each of the 3 positions in a three lettered word sequence, there are 26
possible outcomes, because english consists of a 26 lettered alphabet.
Each position therefore has a 1/26 chance of acquiring the correct letter in
the correct position. We can write this as 26^3. The probability therefore of
finding the word " dog " by chance is 1/17,576. The number 17,576 refers
to the total number of three lettered combinations possible given a 26
lettered alphabet. According to wordfind.com, there are 1,015 three lettered
english words. ( http://www.wordfind.com/3-letter-words/ ) If we subtract
1,015 from 17,576 we end up with16,561. To find any three lettered
sequence resulting in an english word by chance therefore is 1/16,561. We
can now state the results as follows; the more specified the sequence
being searched for, the higher the improbability. The higher the
improbability, the more trials that will need to be run through. The more
trials that will need to be run through, the more time that will be needed to
stumble on a particular specified sequence by chance.
" The neighbors dog won't stop barking. " Let's see what the likelihood
of this specified sequence is to occur by chance. There are a total of 37
positions, with the additions of a space bar, an apostrophe and a period.
26+3 = 29 options per position, therefore the likelihood of this specified
sequence occurring by chance is about 1.2 x 10^54. " The number of
organisms that ever lived if the entire volume of the crust of the earth were
entirely filled with e-coli bacteria reproducing at the maximum of every 20
minutes would be:10^50 bacteria. "
( http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/6937/how-many-organisms-
have-ever-lived-on-earth ) In other words, we should not expect any bowl of
alphabet soup to spill over giving rise to this specified sequence any time
soon. It would take about 10^54 tipped over soup bowl trials before enough
combinations could be actualized to justify the improbability of this specified
phrase. Since nowhere near 10^54 soup bowls have been tipped over in
the last 4.6 billion years of Earths history, this specified phrase can be seen
as practically impossible to occur by chance in any alphabet soup accident.
Specified complex sequences are always caused by intelligence. Therefore
when we come upon a specified complex sequence, we are right to infer
intelligent causation.

Specified Complexity in Life

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four

chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T).
Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of
those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these
bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an
organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a
certain order to form words and sentences. ( https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/
primer/basics/dna ) Think of a genome like a library and genes like the
books within the library. DNA can be thought of as the language making up
the books.
The specified arrangement of DNA nucleotides gives rise to genes;
genes transcribe mRNA; mRNA is then translated into proteins. " Proteins
play a role in movement, structural support, storage, communication
between cells... " ( http://basicbiology.net/micro/biochemistry/protein/ ) So
how much specified information is required for the most basic theoretical
genome ? " These findings resulted in an estimate of 318562 kb for the
minimal genome, which, given the average size of ~1 kb for a bacterial
protein-coding gene, translates into 300500 genes. ( http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2227/ ) A kb is 1,024 bytes. 318-562kb =
325,632 -575,488 bytes. ( http://www.computerhope.com/issues/
chspace.htm ) Going back to our analogy, we can think of the 300-500
genes as books. We can think of the 325,632-575,488 bytes as the total
number of letters contained within all of these books. The average word
length in English is between 5-6 letters. ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/
1208.6109.pdf ) This equates to around 54,272 - 95,914 total words
present in all of these books. There are about 250-300 words per page in
a book, therefore, a 55,000 word book should be about 200 manuscript
pages. ( http://www.megcabot.com/about-meg-cabot/frequently-asked-
questions-getting-published/ )
The simple phrase we tested in the section previous, contained 6
words. The improbability of finding the 6 word sequence by chance we
found was greater than the maximum number of theoretical bacteria that
could have possibly ever existed on planet Earth over the past 4.6 billion
years. The simplest theoretical genome by contrast requires about 200
pages worth of specified information. We will use the same math as before.
This time we are starting with a 4 lettered alphabet instead of 26. There are
325,632 spaces, all of which allow for any of the 4 chemical bases. We can
write this as 4^325,632. Let's assume that only about 1/3rd of the 325,632
spaces need to be specified. That still leaves this number, 4^100,000. Ok
let's say out of what remains, 50% really does not need to be specified, we
still have this number: 4^50,000. According to Douglas Axe, there have only
been around 10^116 atomic-leveled events in the entire history of the
universe; 14 billion years or so. There are not enough actualized events in
the history of the universe to have run through even a fraction of the
required trials needed to produce the simplest theoretical genome. The
simplest theoretical genome is by far beyond practically impossible. Our
design formula ( specificity + complexity = design ) when applied to the
simplest theoretical genome, comes back proof positive for design. The
belief in abiogenesis constitutes as one of the elephants in the room.
 Natural Selection
Dan Tawfik of the Weizmann Institute puts it this way; Evolution has
this catch-22: Nothing evolves unless it already exists. ( Douglas Axe "
undeniable " chapter 6 ) Tom Bethell writes, " It is sometimes said that
natural selection caused the moths to adapt to their environment. But
notice that no individual moth changed color or acquired a novel
adaptation. The dark and light varieties existed before the experiment
began and were still with us after pollution controls were in place. The dark
(melanic) variety simply became relatively more numerous. It might be said
that the moth population adapted, but that only serves to disguise the
point that individual moths did not. " ( Tom Bethell " Darwin's House of
Cards " chapter 6 ) Another line from " Undeniable " states, " Evolutionary
theory ascribes inventive power to natural selection alone. However,
because selection can only home in on the fitness signal from an invention
after that invention already exists, it cant actually invent. " ( chapter 7 )
In his book " Undeniable, " Douglas Axe argues that " functional
coherence " is just as equally improbable with or without natural selection. "
functional coherence is nothing more than complete alignment of low-level
functions in support of the top-level function. " ( chapter 9 ) Axe continues, "
Suppose, for example, that some biological featurecall it Xperforms its
function by means of numerous component functions. For X to work
requires, say, a working P and a working Q and a working R, and for P to
work requires a working H and I and J and K, and so on. In light of all these
requirements, how could the invention of X have come about by accident?
What is supposed to have coordinated the appearance of all these
necessary things at the right times and places, laying the stepping stones
to X out so insightfully? To say merely that the precursors for each
necessary part were selected for different reasons is to ignore the
uncannily complicated circumstances that would be needed for this to be
so. After all, knowing that a certain species would benefit from a working X
gives us no reason to believe that precursors to all the components needed
to build X would just happen to have been beneficial earlier, each for its
own reason, or that all these precursors could have been coaxed by small
modifications into their new X-critical roles just when X was needed.
" ( chapter 7 ) " If the invention of a working X is a whole project requiring
extensive new functional coherence, then the invention of X by accidents of
any kind is physically impossible. " ( chapter 9 ) Axe defines a whole
projects as, " a big result accomplished only by bringing many small things
or circumstances together in just the right way. " ( chapter 6 ) The belief
that functional coherence can be explained by natural selection constitutes
as one of the elephants in the room.
To add insult to injury, Genome researcher Richard von Sternberg has
this to say; " both protein-coding and non-protein-codingis bidirectional,
multilayered, and interleaved, rather than simply linear. Second, repetitive
elements format and punctuate the genome at different scales, producing a
multidimensional filing system. Third, cells can write codes onto non-
protein-coding DNA, as they do in the case of centromeresso the
phenotype is not reducible to the genotype. ( Jonathan Wells "The Myth of
Junk DNA " chapter 10 ) In the same Chapter Sternberg argues, " contrary
to neo-Darwinism, the DNA sequence is not simply a linear code that can
be mutated indefinitely to generate new information. Instead, it is highly
specified to function as one component of a multidimensional system. "
So what can natural selection do if it can't create ? Axe summarizes the
role of natural selection for us; " Selection does one thing reasonably well,
in fact. Having failed as an inventor, it has managed to prove itself as a
fiddler, referring to the kind of fiddling we do in a cluttered toolshed or
garage. Just as a stalled motor can sometimes be made to run with a slap
on the side, or a barely working piece of equipment can be made to work
better with a drop of oil here or the turn of a wrench there, so it is with
biological systems. Small adjustments can sometimes mean the difference
between working poorly and working well, and selection seems to have a
knack for finding adjustments of that kind. " ( Douglas Axe Undeniable
chapter 7 )
 Darwinism / Modern Evolutionary Synthesis
Evolution predates Darwin by thousands of years. Around 500 BC
Xenophanes studied fossils and put forth various theories on the evolution
of life. ( http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html ) The myth
that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution is another elephant in the
room. Darwin transformed an age-old belief into a testable hypothesis.
Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down. But I can find no such case. " Thing is, no evolutionary
biologist actually believes in Darwinism anymore. We have no evidence
at all that the tree of life is a reality," (Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary
biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris.) Darwinism has
been replaced with what I like to call Darwinism 2.0, also known as the
modern evolutionary synthesis. The tree of life is being politely buried,"
said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California,
Irvine. " What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology
needs to change." ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/
charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life ) Michael Rose uses the phrase "
Politely buried, " I think a more realistic and accurate phrase would read, "
embarrassingly swept under the rug. "
What does a proponent of the modern evolutionary synthesis believe
in that a traditional devout Darwinist did not ? Punctuated equilibrium !
Punctuated equilibrium is the hypothesis that evolutionary development is
marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of
little or no change. ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/
punctuated_equilibrium ) " The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis was a
modified form of the hopeful monster theory put forward by the German
paleontologist Otto Schindewolf in the 1930s. ( Divine Action and Natural
Selection page 800 ) The main driving force appealed to for punctuated
equilibrium is population size; smaller populations lead to higher mutation
rates. In small, reproductively isolated populations, special circumstances
exist that can produce rapid changes in gene frequencies totally
independent of mutation and natural selection. These changes are due
solely to chance factors. The smaller the population, the more susceptible
it is to such random changes. This phenomenon is known as genetic
drift. ( http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_5.htm ) Does genetic drift
add or eliminate information over time ? Professor Maciej Giertych has this
to say, due to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population
will irreversibly lose some genes. He continued, The important thing to
remember here is that a race is genetically impoverished relative to the
whole population. It has fewer alleles (forms of genes). Some of them are
arranged into special, interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly
achieved by guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But
these selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is
referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the
gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means
construction of new genes. It means increase in the amount of genetic
information, and not reduction of it. ( http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/
creation/gjkeane/foreword.html ) Punctuated equilibrium is another dead
end road for evolution. The myth that evolution is settled science, is
another elephant in the room.
Oxford philosopher karl Popper stated, " to be certified as scientific,
theories must in principle be falsifiable. " ( " Darwin's House of Cards " )
Picking up on this insight Tom Bethell writes; " The truth is that common
ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data,
not an undeniable conclusion. Whenever data contradicts expectations of
common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of ad hoc rationalizations
to save common descent from being falsified. " ( Chapter 4 ) When the dart
completely misses the target, the target is moved to where the dart landed.
Bethell writes, " Coyne, we may recall, said that species living in similar
habitats will experience similar selection pressures, so they may evolve
similar adaptations, or converge. Bethell responds, " But its a stretch,
surely, to say that Australia and North America are similar habitats.
Furthermore, if a common environment really does cause organisms to
converge, why do we encounter so diverse a variety of animals all living in
the same neighborhood, at the same time? " ( Chapter 10 ) Evolution is
assumed true despite the evidence, not in light of the evidence. " So far, we
have encountered the claims that natural selection can design things just
as human inventors do; it can also cause organs to diverge, or to converge
whatever is needed. Natural selection is the evolutionists obedient
servant. " ( Chapter 10 ) Natural selection is a kind of magic wand, a hand
waving distraction from the real underlying issues. " Functional Coherence
" makes convergence that much more extraordinary. Evolution is an axiom,
not a theory. The belief that evolution is a theory is an elephant in the room.

But Humans and Chimpanzees are 98% Similar Right ?

these figures are only measuring about 2% of our total genetic

makeup - that is, those genes that code for proteins, the building blocks of
our physical bodies and functions. ( https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/
humans-are-not-98-genetically-identical-to-chimpanzees ) The " 98%
similarity " figure given in support of chimp to human ancestry, only relates
to protein coding regions of the genome; not the genome itself. The same
article goes on to say, The vast majority of our DNA, known as "non-
coding DNA" - sometimes called "junk DNA" because it was once thought
not to have function - is very different in humans from most non-coding
genes found in chimps and other apes.
Ralph Seelke, Ph.D. Professor of Microbial Genetics and Cell writes, "
our early understanding of DNA was incomplete, and genomics research is
now revealing levels of control and complexity inside our cells that were
undreamed of in the 1980s. Far from providing evidence for Darwinism, the
story of non-coding DNA rather serves to increase our appreciation for the
design of life. ( Jonathan Wells " The Myth of Junk Dna ) In the same book
and Chapter Michael Denton, Ph.D. Medical Geneticist writes that
Jonathan Wells cites " HUNDREDS OF PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES
WHICH SHOW THAT more and more of the genome is functional..."
If one feels inclined to see the " hundreds and hundreds of peer
reviewed examples " for themselves, read " The Myth of Junk DNA " by
Jonathan Wells. The important fact to remember here is this; the entirety of
the genome has an important role to play; gene regulation, structural
support, expression of genes, to name a few. The entire genome needs to
be compared to chimps, not just the protein coding regions. When the two
genomes are compared, the claimed 98% similarity evaporates.
Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. has this to say, the results of my comparison
showed variability between 66 and 76 percent similarity for the different
chimp chromosomes, with an overall genome average of only 70 percent
similarity to human chromosomes. In reality, many chromosomal regions
are vastly different between chimps and humans, and several areas of the
genome that are present in chimps are completely absent in humansand
vice versa. ( https://www.icr.org/article/7892 ) Tomkins continued on to
say, as far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y
chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent.
The claim that chimps and humans are 98% identical is a myth, and
constitutes as one of the elephants in the room.
In 1957, Haldane published a seminal paper that was to shake up
the field of evolutionary biology and reveal one of the fatal flaws of the
theory of evolution. His paper was titled simply, The Cost of Natural
Selection. You know the expression, do the math. In this paper, Haldane
did the math on evolution. Haldane, not being a creationist, did his study as
an ardent believer in evolution, yet still revealed a fatal flaw in Darwinian
evolution. The article continues, Imagine an ape being born with a
genetic mutation that gives it a slightly modified knee to help it walk slightly
more erect. How many generations would it take for that one mutation to
spread to an ape population of 100,000 apes scattered across a continent?
The apes without the knee mutation have to die off and only the ones with
the slightly better knee survive. Thats only one mutation and ape to human
evolution requires millions of mutations. Don Batten, PH.D. writes,
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans.
Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial
that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out
all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to
replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every
generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed
time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would
mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population
(i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which
maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome
could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a
human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than
5%, evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic
information in a creature such as a human. Back to the original article we
read, " Using far more realistic numbers, Haldane calculated that only
about 1,667 genetic changes could be substituted into the gene pool of the
human race in ten million years! Haldane gave a realistic and very
pessimistic (for the evolutionist) number of substituted genetic changes in
his calculations. Haldanes numbers clearly show that ape to human
evolution in ten million years is impossible.
( https://billnugent.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/haldanes-dilemma-shows-
impossibility-of-ape-to- human-evolution/ ) The belief that humans and
chimps share a common ancestor, is another elephant in the room.

Guided Energy vs Unguided Energy

Not all energy is equal. Energy comes in two flavors; constructive and
destructive. To easily prove this let's do a thought experiment. If we pull two
flowers out of the ground, and place the one in a freezer and the other
outside on a table, which of the two flowers will decompose fastest ?
( assuming we live in a hot climate ) Answer: The flower left on the outside
table will decompose the fastest. The reason for this is simple, the
environment energy in a freezer is reduced, allowing the flower inside to
maintain its specified complex structure longer; the flower left on the
outside table however, occupied a higher energy environment; which
destroyed the flower's specified complex structure at a faster rate. Energy
destroyed life right before our very eyes, how then can we say that energy
was responsible for the origins of life ?
" But wait just a minute " some may say, " without the energy from the
sun, neither flowers could survive right ? " That is correct. However, the
reason flowers are not destroyed by energy prior to plucking them from the
ground, is due to their ability to convert unguided energy into guided
energy. This conversion requires photosynthesis. Prior to mechanisms such
as photosynthesis, unguided energy is destructive not constructive to
organic structures. Unguided energy is therefore the enemy not the
progenitor of life from non life. The appeal to an open system qualifies as
one of the elephants in the room.
 Genetic Entropy

" Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it
accumulates 100200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing
analysis of the Y chromosome. ( http://www.nature.com/news/
2009/090827/full/news.2009.864.html ) There are three classes of
mutation; harmful, near neutral, and beneficial. Beneficial mutations are
rare, and come at a cost. The most common mutation is a near neutral
mutation, don't let the term " near neutral " trick you though, these
mutations become deadly as they accumulate. A harmful mutation can also
be passed on to the next generation, just so long as it does not prevent an
organism from transmitting its genes. The proponents of the modern
evolutionary synthesis appeal to random mutations coupled with natural
selection as a means of generating new genetic information. However,
even if an organism were to win the genetic lottery as it were, thus
obtaining a beneficial mutation, this acquired beneficial mutation is passed
along side an overwhelmingly larger set of non beneficial mutations. In fact,
genetically specified complex information is being subtracted over time, not
gained over time. John Sanford ( inventor of the gene gun, received his
PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. ) has estimated human
fitness reduction per generation to sit between 1-2%. Some geneticists put
the fitness loss even higher; in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science by Lynch, they claim that human fitness is declining at
35% per generation. Life is going down not up. The belief in simple to
complex evolution by means of random mutations coupled with natural
selection is another elephant in the room.
 Irreducible Complexity
Think of a theoretical line with 4 points placed on it; points A, B, C, and
D. This theoretical line represents a theoretical evolutionary pathway to a
new theoretical invention. This theoretical invention requires four unique
parts all working together to produce a new function. Point A represents our
first part. Point B represents part two, and point C will represent part three.
Point D is the last part required before this theoretical invention can be
realized. In evolutionary logic, if any point along this theoretical line fails to
carry a benefit, the theoretical invention requiring all four parts can not be
arrived at through a gradual selective process. Finding such an invention
would meet Darwin's own requirement of falsification; " If it could be
demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly
have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down. "
The same concept applies equally to molecular machinery. The
bacteria flagellum is composed of around forty unique parts, all of which
come together to perform a specific function; namely the propulsion of
bacteria through liquid medium. Remove any one of the forty or so parts
required for propulsion, and the bacteria will loose its ability to move about
in liquid medium. When one of the forty parts is removed from the bacteria
flagellum, it does not result in the flagellum partially working, instead, the
flagellum stops functioning altogether. The bacteria flagellum is therefore
irreducibly complex. The belief that biological inventions can be arrived at
through a slow selective process, constitutes as one of the elephants in the
room. ( For a far more in depth look at the bacteria flagellum i recommend
this lecture, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NXElnMuTPI )
 HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

1 ) Brains are physical entities which can be measured; mental states by

contrast are non physical entities and therefore cant be measured.
Difference number 1
Example: We can weigh brains, we cant however weigh a particular
person's sense of duty to country; the sense of duty is a non material
experience, irreducible to matter and energy.

2 )Brains can be publicly accessed while a mind can only be privately

accessed. Difference number 2
Example: Our brains are visible to anyone during a brain scan; however,
direct experience of our experiences remains off limits from outside
observers. Even when scientists map the relationship between specific
regions of the brain to corresponding mental states, this data is only
obtained because the patient revealed it them. Mental states can only be
observed indirectly by outsiders, never directly.

3 ) Matter cant be about anything, matter just " is. " The mind by contrast
is always " about " something else. Difference number 3
Example: An electron is not " about " whizzing around the nucleus of an
atom, it just is whizzing about the nucleus. Our thoughts by contrast are
" about " electrons whizzing about an atoms nucleus.
( For a short talk on this and other distinctions please go here: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ff1jiRpjko )

Minds possesses properties not found in matter, therefore it logically

follows the mind is not the brain. In philosophy, the distinction between
mind and brain can be referred to as " dualism. " This dualistic fact about
ourselves has far reaching implications, the supernatural indeed exist. The
myth that nothing beyond nature exist or can be proven to exist, is yet
another elephant in the room.
 Since the mind is not the brain, it logically follows that one's self may
in fact continue onward and upward after the decay of one's physical body
upon natural death. The belief that one's self seizes to exist after one's
brain stops functioning is based on the assumption that the brain gives rise
to the mind. We have already seen though, three ways in which the mind
and brain are mutually exclusive by way of properties. Matter can't give
what it does not possess; in order for matter to cause the property of
" about-ness," matter must itself possess the property of " about-ness."
Matter does not possess the property of " about-ness," therefore mind is
irreducible to matter. The belief that the brain causes mind is another
elephant in the room.
Just how weird is consciousness ? Let's think of consciousness in
real world examples. Imagine trying to program a super computer to see
different wave lengths of light as various colors; colors do not exist in the
material universe because a color is a metaphysical experience derived
from light waves, not the light waves themselves. To make matters worst,
this computer we are trying to program must be able to think in three or two
dimensional images; further these images must be purely conceptual, they
can't actually exist in two or three dimensional space like all natural images
do. I hope it has become clear now that " conceptual thoughts, " and "
experiences " are irreducible to the natural universe. There is no scientific
or logical pathway from matter to intentionality. physical occurrences do
not just appear to be different from consciousness; they are utterly different,
so utterly different in fact, that it is inconceivable how the physical could
produce the mental. ( DR Keith Maslin )
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor writes in regard to physical memory
forming and retrieval; "How, pray tell, can the concept of your grandma's
justice or her mercy or her cynicism be encoded in an engram? The quality
of mercy is not strained, nor can it be encoded. How many dendrites and
axons for mercy? You see the nonsense. ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/
2014/12/recalling_nanas091821.html ) Michael Egnor continues, " consider
a hypothetical "engram" of your grandmothers lovely face that "codes" for
your memory of her appearance. Imagine that the memory engram is safely
tucked into a corner of your superior temporal gyrus, and you desire to
remember Nanas face. " ( Engrams are theorized to be means by which
memories are stored as biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain
(and other neural tissue) in response to external stimuli. ) " As you try to
remember Nanas face, you must then locate the engram of the memory,
which of course requires that you (unconsciously) must remember where in
your brain Nanas face engram is stored was it the superior temporal
gyrus or the middle temporal gyrus? Was it the left temporal lobe or the
right temporal lobe? So this retrieval of the Nana memory via the engram
requires another memory (call it the "Nana engram location memory"),
which must itself be encoded somewhere in your brain. To access the
memory for the location of the engram of Nana, you must access a memory
for the engram for the location for the engram of Nana. And obviously you
must first remember the location of the Nana engram location memory,
which presupposes another engram whose location must be remembered.
Ad infinitum. Now imagine that by some miracle (materialist metaphysics
always demands miracles) you are able to surmount infinite regress and
locate the engram for Nanas face in your superior temporal gyrus (like
finding your keys by serendipity!). Whew! But dont deceive yourself this
doesnt solve your problem in the least. Because now you have to decode
the engram itself. The engram would undoubtedly take the form of brain
tissue a particular array of proteins, or dendrites or axons, or an
electrochemical gradient of some specific sort that would mean "memory
of Nanas face." But how can an electrochemical gradient represent a face?
Certainly an electrochemical gradient doesnt look like grandma and
even if it did, youd have to have a little tiny eye in your brain to see it to
recognize that it looked like grandma. Whatever form the engram takes
must be a code, and you must then have a key to the code, stored in your
brain just like the Nana memory is stored. But then you must remember
where the key to the code is stored, which is itself another memory which
must be stored and remembered. And to remember the location of a
location for the key for the code for the engram requires another engram to
remember the location of the location code, which must be located and
decoded, which requires another key engram which you now must locate
" The belief that memories are stored in the brain is another elephant in the
room.
The brain, like all matter, is subject to the causal effects chain which
produced it. That is to say, all thoughts are caused as opposed to willed if
we conflate the mind with the brain. Accepting such a postulate ( the mind
is the brain ) also entails accepting that one did not arrive at this conclusion
based on any evidence for its truth value; because arriving at conclusions
based on their truth value would imply the ability to freely choose beliefs;
which implies a will, which in turn contradicts the belief that the mind is the
brain. Remember, if the mind is in fact the brain, our thoughts are caused
not willed by present and past causal effects as mentioned above. It is at
this point where the mind/brain conflation logically self implodes. Believing
the mind to be the brain is therefore self defeating, and renders unto us, yet
another elephant in the room.
I cant move on without addressing the most frequent evidence given
against mind/brain dualism. Some will argue that if a certain region in the
physical brain is impaired, obvious mental defects immediately follow as a
consequence. Such a person fails to see however, that given dualism is
true, the same consequences would likewise arise. Within dualism, the
mind and the brain interact in relation to one another like how a satellite
orbiting Earth, and a house dish work together as to produce images on
television sets. When a certain region of the brain is damaged, the signal
flowing between the mind and the corresponding region of the brain is
impaired; just as when a house dish is damaged, the signal flowing
between the satellite and the house dish is likewise impaired. When the
signal between the satellite and the house dish is severed, the images on
the television set are dropped; in like manner, if the signal between the
mind and brain is severed, consciousness is dropped. No matter which
view one takes, the consequences are exactly the same if any region of the
brain is damaged. This objection against mind/brain dualism simply does
not work, and qualifies as one of the elephants in the room.
The fact that a neurosurgeon has to personally invoke a physical
response by stimulating brain tissue equally proves dualism. In dualism the
mind stimulates the response. You do not prove that a pianist is not needed
to play a piano by playing the notes yourself.

Evolution of the Brain vs intelligent

design philosophically

Alvin Plantinga ( American philosopher at the University of Notre

Dame ) points out that natural selection can only select for traits which
allow for an organism to survive. Natural selection could care less if the
beliefs an organism holds are true or false; natural selection is only
interested in behaviors, not beliefs. If a false belief causes the correct
behavior in an organism, that false belief will be selected for and passed
on. Darwin himself had this to say; "but then with me the horrid doubt
always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if
there are any convictions in such a mind? For example, if an organism
believed that a lion was a sword chasing after them, this false belief would
induce the same behavior needed to run and survive. This false belief
would be selected for and thus passed on. It is self refuting to insist that the
brain is the result of evolutionary processes because such a belief requires
the ability to arrive at true beliefs, but within an evolutionary framework, no
such reliable pathway exist. ( https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/
virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/
an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf ) The belief that the
brain evolved is another elephant in the room.
Intelligent design on the other hand allows for truth to be arrived at.
Rather than appealing to natural selection, which is merely a behavior
selecting mechanism, intelligent design proponents argue that the brain
was created intelligently; with reliable faculties capable of discerning and
discovering truth. Intelligent design is the only position which allows for
truth to be known, therefore the only position which allows for logically
consistent truth claims concerning external reality.

Conscious Giver
All of the elephants leading up to this point dissolve when we introduce
the spiritual back to its rightful position. As conscious creatures we would
be wise to look for a cause possessing the supernatural properties we find
ourselves occupying. A supernatural conscious experiencer, hmmm, where
have I heard that before ?

Beauty and the Beast

There is no survival benefit to finding the moon's reflection on water

beautiful, or the arches of Roman and Greek architecture aesthetically
pleasing. Beauty is a gift, not a trait. Gifts come from gift senders. Think of
beauty as the bow on top a gift; the gift is life, the bow is beauty.
 Conclusion
Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find;
knock and the door will be opened to you.