Chemistry Creation/evolution Physics Science

The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself? Part 7

Part 7 of my review of the book: “The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself,” by Sean M. Carroll. Part 6 is found here.

Origin of Life

In the chapter titled “Light and Life,” Carroll discusses the meaning of what life is and the origin of life itself. He makes a passing comment that at least bacterial life may be found on another planet. He mentions, as a fact, that Europa, which is one of the natural satellites or moons of Jupiter, “… has more liquid water than all the oceans on Earth” (p.238).

But that has only been conjectured if there are liquid oceans underneath Europa’s frozen surface ice. The oceans are thought to begin 20 to 50 kms (12 to 30 miles) below the surface. Thus it may be sometime before the conjecture can be confirmed or denied. If there is anything we can learn from this, it is that Carroll is not phased at presenting as fact something he hopes to be true. To my knowledge, as of writing this, no oceans have been definitely discovered on Europa.

He asks the question, in regards to looking for life in space, will we know it is life when we see it?

“What is life anyway? Nobody knows. There is not a single agreed-upon definition that clearly separates things that are ‘alive’ from those that are not.” (p.238)

He gives NASA’s definition as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” (p.238) He claims that the ‘correct’ definition of life doesn’t exist. Yet he offers the following.

“Life as we know it moves (internally if not externally), metabolizes, interacts, reproduces, and evolves, all in hierarchical, interconnected ways.” (p.238)

Edwin Schrödinger, who helped formulate quantum mechanics, believed it was one of balance, balance between change and maintenance of structure and integrity. His definition is as follows.

“When is a piece of matter said to be alive? When it goes on ‘doing something,’ exchanging material with its environment, and so forth, and that for a much longer period than we would expect an inanimate piece of matter to ‘keep going’ under similar circumstances.” (p.239)

This focuses on the ‘self-sustaining’ part of NASA’s definition.

Creation/evolution Physics Science

How much can you trust in science?

How do we know what is true and what is not? These days we are expected to believe what we hear on television, read in the newspaper and read on the web. Science is portrayed as being able to answer (eventually) all questions and provide some sort of ultimate truth. But how much can you believe that? How much should you believe?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” So began a letter in the Comment section in the medical journal the Lancet.The following is a sample of excerpts from that letter (my emphases added in bold).

Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? [in regards to government employees.] Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

edch-150605-2The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative.

Age of the Earth Cosmology Creation/evolution Science

The revolt against Darwinism

Do you remember the revolt of the scientists against the big bang theory for the origin of the universe? In 2004 a group of 33 leading scientists took out a paid advertisement in New Scientist.  They titled it ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community,’ basically stating that the big bang theory was fundamentally flawed.

An article copying that appeared on titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004). See screenshot on left.Rense

The list of names of scientists who agreed with the Statement—that is, disagreed with the theory of a big bang origin of the universe—is available here and many more added their names to that list.

These scientists only agreed on one thing. They were all united in their conviction that the big bang was a bust.

A renewed revolt against Darwinism

Age of the Earth astronomy Belief in God Biblical morality Cosmology Creation/evolution hermeneutics History Meaning of life Physics Science

Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, the Movie

I just watched this documentary. It is powerful. Buy it! You won’t be disappointed!

Promo here.

The movie has been available since October 20th 2015. Order it now. More Information

Creation Ministries International (CMI) undertook a major new offensive to take even more ground in the battle to proclaim the truth of the Bible. The aim was to simply and concisely expose evolution’s fatal weaknesses.

It culminated in 2014 with the completion of a milestone book, and a 96-minute DVD documentary, both called Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels.

The Achilles’ heels of evolution are often in the very areas widely considered to be impregnable strongholds of this belief system. These areas are the topics systematically covered in both the book and the documentary. They are:

  • Natural Selection
  • Genetics and DNA
  • The Origin of Life
  • The Fossil Record
  • The Geologic Record
  • Radiometric Dating
  • Cosmology
  • Ethics and Morality

We believe evolution theory has no answer to these weaknesses, once properly explained and understood. The book is like no other work that we are aware of, in that it is authored exclusively by nine Ph.D. scientists, including myself, to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. The documentary involves even more PhD scientists, 15 in all, and features striking footage and brilliant computer animations. All of these scientists received their doctorates from similar, secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in various relevant fields.

Review by

Cosmology Creation/evolution Physics

On the origin of universes by means of natural selection

—or, blinded by big bang blackness

The origin of our universe is a vexing problem for the atheist. The very state of the observable universe today presents serious problems for them, as it demands a Creator. Why did the universe begin in such an organised state, where laws are finely tuned for life to exist, and where irreversible processes occur producing the forward­­ march of time?

In thinking on the nature of the universe and our existence within it, the Greeks developed the philosophies of rationalismand empiricism2, two different approaches they believed could determine truth from the world. The former involved deduction,3 and the latter, induction.4 No reference to a Creator God was considered relevant.

The modern cosmologist, one who attempts to explain the origin of a rational universe, with laws derived from observation, is one who believes he can, by inductive reasoning alone, discover its origin without the Creator.

The atheists say the rational mind concludes that there is no God, therefore the universe is the outcome of pure materialism.5 Then how do we explain how the universe came to be? How do we, by induction alone, explain the origin of the laws of physics? And how do we test if our explanations are correct? These are fundamental epistemological6 questions that need to be answered.

Age of the Earth astronomy Belief in God Biblical morality Cosmology Creation/evolution History Meaning of life Physics Science

Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, the Book

This has been a long time in the making! This powerful book exposes the fatal flaws of evolutionary thinking. Like no other work that I am aware of, it is authored by nine Ph.D. scientists, including myself, to produce a coordinated, coherent, powerful argument. All of the authors received their doctorates from similar secular universities as their evolutionary counterparts. Each is a specialist in a field relevant to the subject written about: Natural selection, origin of life, geology, genetics, radiometric dating, the fossil record, cosmology, and ethics.

Creation/evolution Science

Why evolution is not true

Presented by Dr Don Batten of Creation Ministries International.

Produced by the National Education Coalition. Recorded at the

National Christian Apologetics & Worldview Conference

November 7th – 9th 2013, Gold Coast, Qld Australia


Creation/evolution Physics Science

Illusion of design in living things?

…that’s one of the most interesting things about living creatures; that they do carry this overwhelmingly strong illusion of design….living things really do. ”  [emphasis added]

—Richard Dawkins,atheist and anti-creationist.

He called it an illusion. Why? Because he is a follower of scientism2 (‘science’ is the only way of knowing) with its atheistic belief in ‘goo-to-you’ evolution via the zoo. The belief that over millions to billions of years specific complex coded information has been added to the genomes causing them to appear intelligently designed when in fact they are not. They were ‘just shaped’ by their environment under the action of mutations and natural selection, so he says. But just look at this ‘illusion.’