DeGrasse Tyson’s mistake about the Bible

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the  presenter of the television series, Cosmos:A Space Time Odyssey that
Neil deGrasse Tysonstarted in March 2014. He made the following challenging statement, “There is no example of someone reading their scripture and saying, ‘I have a prediction about the world that no one knows yet, because this gave me insight. Let’s go test that prediction,’ and have the prediction correct.” 1

 

What he inferred is that the Bible and its creation account must be removed from the scientific scene. Science can make predictions and the Bible cannot. We, based on our belief that the Bible is true, predict the following two things:

 

  1. Science will never be able to solve the riddle of the origin of the universe, our solar system, and life on earth.
  2. Science will reveal ever added layers of complexity, especially when it comes to the biological world. This means solving life’s evolutionary origin question will become more difficult.


Concerning prediction 1

It is difficult for science to solve the origins issue, because each part of the creation that God made is unique: the universe, our solar system, the sun, moon, our earth, water, plants, microbes, insects, reptiles, fish, birds, animals and humans. For example,

  • The big bang. We often hear about the big bang and why it is true. Yet no one can explain precisely where the singularity that exploded or expanded to form the universe came from. We are expected to believe the fairy tales that it just popped into existence.
  • A multiverse. Another way to skirt around the origins issue is to claim we live in a multiverse. Really? How are we to know? We are expected to believe it by faith (that there is no Creator God, because out of millions of universes there was one that produced life by chance).
  • The solar system. Does the Solar Nebula Hypothesis explain the origin of our solar system, with its different planets and unique sun? Why is only the earth life friendly? Billions are spent to look for earth-like planets out there. It is reported that they find many. We are waiting for the observable proof that there is life on them.  We might wait for a very long time, because we are told God made only one, unique habitable planet.  In science fiction they travel quickly to other planets and meet the aliens. In real life it is more difficult, if not impossible.

 

Concerning prediction 2

The hope to prove that life created itself is like trying to reach the end of the rainbow. It remains elusive.

  • Scientists find additional complexity all the time, because of better scientific apparatus and methods. Science is a problem for evolution because it continually discovers more layers of complexity. That makes evolution even less possible. An example is DNA. Scientists realise that it is even more intricate than they thought initially. Instead of solving the problem of how things evolved, the problems increase. 2
  • Billions are and will be spent trying to solve the riddle of natural origins through evolution. Our prediction is that it will not be successful, because life is too unique. The side issues will be explained, but origins never.  That excludes the fact that propaganda for evolution improves all the time.

 

Question: We hear about long lists of earth-like planets, have any stood close scrutiny?

References

  1. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Enlightened religious people….don’t try to use the Bible as a textbook, Sarah Gray, Monday, March 10, 2014, http://www.salon.com/2014/93/10/neil_degrasse_tyson_enlightened_religious_people_dont_try_to_use_bible_as_textbook/
  2. Three More Codes in Nature to Decipher, Evolution News & Views, March 11, 2014, http://www.evolutionnews. org/2014/03/three_more_code083081.html

Why evolution is not true

Millions of people believe that evolution is true. TV programs, newspapers, technical research
No investigation of evolutionjournals, schools and universities declare that it is science. Thus many people and even theologians agree.

 

What is strange, is that there is a massive campaign to prohibit critical discussion of evolution. This is happening in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and many other European nations. They make laws to ‘protect’ evolution from criticism.

 

If evolution is proven science, why is nobody allowed to critically discuss it? Why are no laws made to prohibit discussion of the relativity theory of Einstein, gravity, magnetism and many other facts of biology, like the production of energy in the mitochondria? It is because laws of nature are normally proven (unless falsified) by many repeated experiments. So real or operational science does not need protection through laws. By operational science we mean physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology, unfettered by all the imaginary evolution scenarios.

 

An established law of nature seldom comes under attack. Scientists do experiments and show the results if they think it is wrong. If there are questions about some aspect of a law of nature, a scientist can answer the questions, normally without excitement, since it is based on repeated experiments. Why would somebody query, for example, the law of gravity? Even the mechanisms of meiosis and mitosis have been established through pain staking laboratory experiments. Nobody ever questions them. They are ‘solid’ facts which were verified by repeated experiments.

 

So why does evolution need protection? What is sacred about evolution? Why is it so precious? How can many scientists do their work without ever calling on Darwin for help? Today, in our modern age, we have another Inquisition. There are a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to censor any criticism of evolution. It has become dangerous to attempt to discuss Darwinism negatively. Why? Why are the jobs of teachers and lecturers in danger when they question evolution? Those people never criticise the Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, or metamorphosis, because they are established facts.

 

The ‘protection’ of Darwinism, or evolutionism by law, is highly suspicious. The only conclusion is: if they have to use the courts to protect the teaching of evolution, they tacitly admit that it is not science, but a faith.  A faith in what Darwin proposed, namely that molecules can change to men, over millennia, by chance and luck. Because it has never been proven that evolution is a scientific fact, it needs protection.

 

It needs protection, as evolution is not about teaching science, but about teaching atheism. There is no God. Accept it, and don’t question it (it is because if evolution is true, then it follows logically that there can be no Creator God). Evolution is the foundation stone of atheism. In the drive to convert society to atheism, schools are a good place to enforce it.

 

If evolution is not true (which atheists cannot allow), creation is a fact. Then God is real, and that is not what they want people to know.

 

Nobody has yet proven that evolution is true (we exclude the usual beak of the finch, and other normal adaptations). It must be protected, otherwise atheists will have to concede that their faith is without evidence. Rational people don’t want that, so use the courts of law.

 

Question: Do you think protecting evolution by law is good evidence that it is true?

 

How society should change if evolution is true

The beginning and development of the universe and all life, we are told, was through natural evolution.
No churches if evolution trueIt was a random process that took millions of years. Yet we are assured that it is a scientific fact. Evolution is the exact opposite of supernatural creation where God planned it all with a purpose and did it in 6 days.

If evolution is true without a shadow of a doubt, society should have changed in the following ways:

 

No amount of creation make-belief will convince Christians that the Bible is true. They will realise that there is no God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit. Churches would have closed a few years after Darwin published his book in 1859. So it was unnecessary to train ministers and evangelists. Theological colleges closed. Theological books and Bibles were burnt or recycled. Former ministers  of the Gospel changed to whatever job they found, because there were no active churches.

 

There will be no debates between hated creationists and highly trained evolutionary scientists (it will save a lot of time). Scientists will be able to concentrate on science. There will be no evolutionary biologists and geneticists. They no longer need to vindicate Darwin, because he triumphed, and evolution is as much a fact of life as gravity.

 

People like Richard Dawkins will be jobless, because there will be no need to evangelise for atheism. All people will automatically, by default, be atheists. ‘Religion’ will not be an issue. So nobody will write books that there is no God.

 

Museums won’t need to organise and display special programs to teach evolution. National Geographic won’t need to make nature programs to ‘sell’ evolution to the masses. Organisations like the National Centre for Science Education that protect evolution against criticism, will not exist.

 

Oh, it will be so wonderful without a God. There will be no more terrible wars by the Christians, and no more persecution of honest evolutionists who are harassed by ‘creationists.’ 1 There will be no problems, crime, or anything that disturb the peace and happiness in the atheistic Utopia. People will just live and enjoy a life without accountability.

 

This scenario has not arrived, so maybe evolution is not as true as they want us to believe. In the meantime, Bible believers are urged by atheists and evolutionists not to despair. Christianity is a faith without evidence, while evolution has evidence. The Bible teaches that what you say about others, might apply to yourself.2  In this instance it is very true: it is not Biblical faith that is without evidence (the Bible is history written down by eye-witnesses), evolution is a faith in things that no one has ever seen. It is without evidence.

 

Question: If evolution is a fact, why does it regard Biblical creation as its enemy?


References

  1. R Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, 2009, p 15, ‘The plight of science teachers today is not less dire.  When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context – which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs.’
  2. Romans 2:1, ‘You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.’