Is Intelligent Design Compatible With Darwinian Evolution Theory?

On 6/20/2010 on Coast to Coast AM, radio show host George Noory interviewed “Dr. Bernard Haisch” who the C2C AM website describes as “an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.” George almost right away brought up Stephen Hawking asking what was going on with him, and Bernie made it seem as if Hawking had had a change of mind after having written a book (his latest) called The Grand Design and might believe in an intelligent designer who designed the universe, saying that it seemed to Hawking that the laws of the universe were “finely tuned” (designed) for life (an old evidence for God or someone or someones like him having created the universe), but actually Hawking hadn’t changed his mind since writing his book, and was simply stating what seemed true to him, yet is in denial about it as his book The Grand Design shows. Bernie then said that he believed that humans had been created with a purpose and that’s “It’s more likely that the universe is a finely tuned place for life.” Bernie also brought up how astrophysicist George Ellis said that “life would not be possible if there were very small changes”. What Ellis said actually said was, “What is clear is that life, as we know it, would not be possible if there were very small changes to either physics or the expanding universe that we see around us.

However he said that he believed we were created through evolution, and “to learn” and that God didn’t create us in the way the Bible says and doesn’t “interfere” , because that would be “like [the] Santa Claus [story being true]” He also said that “the purpose behind all this is for God to evolve himself”. He said that he went to the “Latin school of Indianapolis” and to a Catholic seminary for one semester in an attempt to become a (Catholic) priest. He also posed the question “was the universe was made in a way that was conducive for life” and answered himself, saying “yes it was.”

Bernie’s misdescribes what it is when God acts within the universe, calling it “interference”. Why so? When a human does something is it automatically “interference”? Obviously not. Further, he compares the claim that God directly created humans instantly as being like the Santa Clause story, but does not explain why, or how such a comparison is evidence against the Genesis record. Further, his claim that God acting within the universe would go against “us” (humans) learning anything is without evidence. He doesn’t explain how that would prevent us from learning anything. And it goes against common sense: why if God gave us information would that PREVENT any human from learning anything? It would be just the opposite: they would learn about God (some way in which he does or can communicate) and learn the information he gave them if he allowed them to understand what he said. Also, why if God was able to create the laws of the universe (which is nothing simple, and which no creature has apparently mastered, not even aliens being that they can crash and die, must travel in vehicles to get to Earth and use created tools to examine us further than what they can learn simply by their senses), why if God could do that, and create a universe itself, would he NOT be able to see the future perfectly as the Bible claims, or alter it in anyway without preventing us or himself from learning or evolving as Bernie implied? Why would God NOT learn anything by altering what he made? Would God NOT learn something he spoke to a human or any of his creatures and observed how they reacted? I also noticed that part of Bernie’s illogical beliefs about reality was due to his belief in randomness, a thing which doesn’t exist being that everything, as he himself acknolwedges, goes by finely tuned laws, and that there is a purpose behind everything, not a “random non-purposed experimental universe by a God who failed at his experiment”. So, he contradicted himself. And because of his belief in randomness (a thing which allows for things to happen for no logical reason, apart from the laws of the universe and therefore unable to be purposed/directed), he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Bernie also believes in the “Big Bang”, a thing which has much evidence against it.

After, George said to Bernie that he didn’t believe that God sent floods and Bernie agreed saying that there were verses in the Bible that were “simply awful” like a verse in Deuteronomy in which if a man discovered his bride wasn’t a virgin, that he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep, and saying that that was man’s evil projection onto God, and so revealing his ignorance about God’s authority, the symbolism in the Bible and his laws, and projecting his evil mind onto God’s, which is obviously a hypocritical thing and which contradicts his self-righteous “spirituality” which he said he had on the show. George asked Bernie if he believed that there was a purpose behind everything, and Bernie said that he believed there was. Bernie then said he believed we had spirits that continued to exist after we died.

After that, but not immediately after, George allowed a caller to correct him and Bernie, but they both rejected the correction. Among other things the caller said that there was no evidence for evolution, and said that the claim that God loving everyone would prevent him from harming anyone was false. George challenged the caller a little asking illogically how God could flood the world (and be loving), which is nonseniscal because the caller didn’t say that God WOULDN’T do that, but was saying the opposite of that, and that probably confused the caller a little, because the caller made the mistake of at first denying that God directly caused the flood, but then said it was necessary to get rid of the corruption in the world, the corrupt people being like a poisoned leg that needed to be removed lest the whole body dies. The caller also believed wrongly that the “Nephilim” were all evil (which he implied were of the corrupt people that needed to be killed), which isn’t something you can know being that that word means “giants” and is debatable as to whether or not it also means “bully” which is another way it can be used. When the caller met George’s challenge George seemed a littled annoyed, and Bernie failed to refute the caller, and in part of Bernie’s reply to the caller, claimed that he was wrong to say that there was no evidence for evolution and that it was “well laid out”, even though the caller made it clear that he was talking about two different types of evolution: micro evolution and macro, but again, Bernie ignored that and simply said “evolution”, ignoring the two types, and so committed the logical fallacy of bait and switch (equating two things which are not equal).

It’s also notable that George is a Catholic and pro-Catholic and anti-fundamentalist Christian, yet by denying “awful” verses in the Bible is committing heresy against Catholicism, and he’s been doing this for many years, in the ears of many millions of people, including Catholics, and yet his Pope has not excommunicated George for this nor rebuked him for it. So, George is a hypocrite, and it is strong evidence that Catholics are poorly unified. Unity is supposedly one of the evidences that Catholicism is the true religion according to various Catholics, including the Popes who has lead them. On about June 6th I had been in a Catholic church and observed Catholics doing mass for the first time, and the priest gave a sermon, and in it said that Catholics had a problem with unity, so, at least one Catholic of standing is in agreement with me (but he didn’t know that that is what I believed).

For those who might argue, “Evolutionists who say that evolution is random don’t understand what they are talking about since evolution really isn’t random but follows the laws of the universe. So really there is no problem with evolution science it’s just one of the laws of the universe.” Still, such a statement doesn’t give any evidence that molecules can by the laws of the universe turn into living things, like the simplist living thing to humans or aliens as intelligent as or more intelligent than humans. And for those who simply argue that it’s a myth that evolution is random, like Cameron McPherson Smith and Charles Sullivan, two evolutionists, they give no evidence for this being a myth, but use this stupid time-wasting insulting argument: “But we know that a glance at a flower or moose or meadow isn’t enough to appreciate all of nature, just as a glance at a book isn’t enough to appreciate a whole story. A glance at a living thing sees the here and now, but is blind to the billions of years of life recorded in the fossil record,” as if anyone has been around to see billions of years go by. And from the rant I took that quote from, they don’t say why it’s a myth, but end their insultingly stupid time-wasting rant with, “Both supporters and critics of evolution use the same phrase–“evolution is random”–to support their claims. To really understand the phrase we need to distinguish between how it’s used to support these opposing viewpoints.” I wish I could punch them for deceiving me into reading their Internet pollution, their misleading search engine dung. Why did these idiots claim that “evolution is random” is a myth and why do they claim to be scientific and scientists and yet use non-scientific ranting like that? It’s digusting and sickening to me. And that I still take a chance and read supposed “why creationist is wrong and evolution is right” evidence refutes the moron evolutionists who claim I ignore the evidence and don’t listen and am deluded and close-minded etc. No morons: I have read your “evidence” very carefully as the many articles in my journal and elsewhere shows, and everytime I take a chance to read some new evidence, it turns out to be a disgustingly time-wasting rant or dumb false cult-minded claims, not evidence. And I think that that is the last time I am going to use my time to read anymore supposed evidence for evolution. I am utterly sickened by being told such and such is evidence for evolution and against creationism, only to read an illogical claim. I see now it’s all a shell game and time-wasting game and show-off “look at me and what I feel” game and spam the net to force it down the throats of non-liberals game. Doesn’t the world refer to people who do this as “trolls”? And yet the world calls true Christians “trolls” in their hypocrisy instead. That is what is truly “hypocrisy” and “blind”.

For those who don’t believe in an intelligently designed universe, or designed laws at least, and yet claim that evolution is not random – they are confused or being contentious, because IF THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WERE NOT DESIGNED, THEN THEY WERE WITHOUT PURPOSE AND LAWS DON’T CREATE THEMSELVES, therefore they would have to be produced by the opposite of something with a purpose, a RANDOM act, and randomness is WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE. Purpose is only something a thing with a mind would have, not a law that came into existence by randomness. And for those who would argue that it’s more likely then that the laws that produced the universe were always in existence or that the universe and the laws of it always existed, then a Creator: such people have no evidence for that claim, it’s just their ignorant opinion, even if they call it a fact.

God didn’t use man-to-molecules evolution because it is a pointless process: God taught man both directly and indirectly what right from wrong was within a few days, and gave further insight over thousands of years to learn about it. To spend billions of years waiting to teach HUMANS that is nonsensical, since humans didn’t exist for billions of years in Darwinian Evolution Theory, but only for at the most, hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe a few million, and so God would have waited billions of years just to say, “It’s wrong to disobey me”. Bernie’s version of learning right from wrong is also nonsensical, since if God doesn’t teach what right from wrong is, then no one would ever learn what it was, since right and wrong would never be known: Darwinian Evolution Theory has nothing to do with right from wrong and there is no evidence that it would cause any living things to think, “This is good and this is bad” or “This is the right way to do something and this is the wrong way”. DE Theory is an UNINTELLIGENT MINDLESS supposed law, but mindless doesn’t produce minds. Further, there is no evidence for Bernie’s claim that we’re all here to learn and then go on as spirits. Yet Bernie insists that his belief is true without evidence, like a cultist would do, an idiot.

People like Bernie who have the contradictory belief that there is such thing as randomness and simultaneously unchangeable laws are confused and say contradictory things.

Related Information:

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that no one can tell if such crazy-talk is literal or not. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously DNA didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Demons Pretending to Be Angels and the Free Will Heresy

On Coast to Coast AM last night, George Noory had on “Doreen Virtue” which C2CAM says, “is a spiritual doctor of psychology and a fourth-generation metaphysician who works with the angelic, elemental, and ascended-master realms.” In other words, truthfully, “she communicates with demons which she has deluded herself into thinking are angels and so called ‘nature spirits'”. Doreen herself on the show acknowledged that demons can pretend to be angels and that people should not romance them for pleasure.

On the show, Doreen claimed that we must ask angels for help to get help from them, which reminded me of Mormons and other Free Will Christians, and suspected that that is why she said that, and then no surprise to me she confirmed it by saying that that was necessary or it would be a violation of our free will, however, she contradicted herself afterwards by saying that the only time they could help without our asking for it was “if it isn’t your time” (to die). It’s a contradiction because it implies that GOD’S WILL supersedes our own, and that isn’t compatible with the heretical “free will” nonsense teaching that I’ve been observing and learning about as I keep hearing the world talk about it. Basically, the world’s free will doctrine is that human free will is a sacred thing that must not be violated and that God won’t violate it (and many non-Christians believe that Earth aka Gaea and/or ‘Mother Nature’ also has a will of its/her own), yet, it’s a lie, and like so many lies, contradicts itself. Here is how it contradicts:

1) Wills are always in conflict everywhere, generally speaking, and depending on the personality of the ones who are not getting there way, it can lead to sin, crime, hateful arguing, rather than one side peacefully giving in to the other. So, to act like human’s wills can’t be violated as if it’s some physical law, is nonsense. It’s clearly observably wrong to claim our wills cannot be gone against successfully. Clearly not everyone’s will can be done as they want it to be done and there will always be unfilled will until there is perfect peace (which God says he will bring about, except in Hell). For the Free Will Christians who believe the Bible, who claim that God can’t go against our will, they are clearly wrong, since the Bible repeatedly claims God does that all the time. Some Christians try to brush that off with the ridiculous explanation that God isn’t really going against anyone’s will (how ridiculous!) when he punishes them, because they want to be punished. That is dumb, absolutely dumb. Sure, some people in bitterness say, “bring it on” or “I don’t care” but that’s because THEY DON’T KNOW THE WRATH in store for them. Like one proverb in the Bible says, “A servant cannot be corrected by mere words.” That (rebellious) servant can’t be corrected by mere talk because they aren’t feeling any pain and will especially dismiss warnings if they are feeling pleasure. It’s the same with a rebellious child or any person with a bad habit and who is having “a good time”: unless there is a painful negative consequence, emotionally or physically, they won’t stop. Further, why do so many people, when committing a crime, try to hide that they are committing a crime, or run when they think they are in danger of getting caught for that crime, or lie in court over whether they committed one or not? OBVIOUSLY, it’s because they don’t want to feel pain for what they did, not “BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PUNISHED”. But in order to defend their backwards doctrine, that is how absurd and childish heretics must think: backwards, backwards to the point of embarrassing absurdity that even kids who aren’t brainwashed can recognize is obviously stupid and illogical reasoning that goes against what even stupid people know is stupid.

2) If God’s will is also sacred and cannot be violated, then how can everyone else’s will also be sacred and forbidden from being violated being that God’s will is often not the will of man or anything else? That is a clear contradiction. And it is obvious that if anyone’s will is going to always be done, it’s going to be the all-knowing all-powerful eternal Creator’s, not the created things that like ants compared to him. The Bible even says that God’s will is always done in Heaven, and has us pray that it will always be done on Earth, and even Jesus said to God, “…but your will (be done), not mine.” Doreen tried to dismiss the Bible and untrustworthy because, “it’s been rewritten many times,” the cliche attack of an ignoramus who doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge that the Bible is backed up by many old copies of itself showing that it has been copied very accurately in all the places that matter most, and that there is no evidence of loss of text. Her logic is also wrong in what she implied, which was that many copies necessarily lead to errors. She also stupidly implied that God can’t preserve his own word. With such an unreliable God why does Doreen pretend to love and honor him and that he’s in control? If he can’t preserve his own word, his laws, his commands to love, then how can we? And why follow him if he can’t keep track of what he says or if we can’t? Again: contradictions. That is the lot of liars: lies and contradictions.

3) Why would there be an exception like Doreen claims, that “unless it’s “not your time” angels can’t help you”? Is it just because she said so? Because some angel supposedly told her so. And so what if one did? Can demons pretend to be angels? She herself said so, so then she cannot simply claim, “angels never lie.” And being that humans can repeatedly make the same mistakes and be deceived till death, for years, she can’t claim, especially as a religion-ignorant, which she clearly is, that she is undecievable, immune to be fooled, tricked. Further, some demons, not merely staying in one place and keeping to themselves, go out of there way to lie to humans and deceive them, and having lived for thousands of years, have mastered deception and know how humans react to all kinds of situations and suggestions. And how long has Doreen lived in comparison to such demons? She sure has not lived long enough to become a master of the truth, nor has she studied well enough as was indicated by her evil broadside attacks against Christians, like that they “blackmail” people into believing there religion and her illogical vague statement that “preaching fear” is negative energy (a meaningless statement) with the implication that that is bad. And guess what Doreen is doing by making those claims? According to her vague nonsense, she’s also “preaching fear”. It’s also a clear lie to claim as she did, that all Christians do is talk about fear. Truly she’s a lying ignoramus. Who doesn’t know that millions of Christians have said and still do, “God is love” or “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life” or “love your neighbor as yourself” or “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” or “love your enemies” and “bless those who curse you” and the most famous of all, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you,” all of which are verses from the Bible. Yet she slanders all Christians, including the children, as “preach”ers “of fear” and negativity. Clearly it’s Doreen who is the preacher of fear and negativity by mainly focusing on what she perceives are “negative” things about Christians and mainly finding fault with them, when clearly they have done much good and continue to do so (I’m talking about true Christians, but even Free Will ones do some good, though at the expense of the truth about how to get saved and to lead people away from true salvation, though not all realize they are misleading people).

4) Doreen Virtue also made clearly wrong claims, which is that angels can’t help you unless you ask for it: but as she herself would know, angels are always helping people without them asking for it, and some don’t even believe in angels when they are helped by them. Many people also don’t pray for the help of angels, but ask for God’s help, knowing that he uses angels to do things for him, yet Doreen says to pray to the angels. Why would you pray to the angels rather than God who is in control of them? If you want a coworker to be friendly to you or to help you who is in a different state, do you pray to the coworker or to God? But Doreen hates God, so refuses to go to him for help, but instead wants to worship what he created.

5) Concerning again Doreen’s claim that angels need our permission to help us, how can she say that when surely she hears stories all the time of people being helped by angels and not knowing they were angels or being helped without asking? That could be seen a deliberate deception or insanity for her to ignore what she repeatedly sees contradicts her “free will” belief, which is really about pride and a childish attitude of rebellion towards God. And if angels need our permission, then doesn’t God? Does God need our permission for anything? Obviously to say he does is stupid. That’s lying say that I need the permission of a toy I made, even a living one with a mind, to do anything to it, or that a parent needs the permission of the child to move it somewhere, teach it something, feed it something, give it a gift, love it or even talk to it (which leads to a paradox: how can you ask for permission to talk without first talking if not given permission to talk?) And if a parent doesn’t need its the permission of its children for anything but a few exceptions, how much less does God the creator and sustainer of all things need it? And consider the evil consequences of this free will logic, at least Doreen’s: Humans must ask each other for permission to help each other in all circumstances, including to save each others lives. Consider how many more people in the world would be ignorant, sad, injured and dead from such a law. But many people realize the evil of such bad logic, and have made “good Samaritan” type laws as are mentioned on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law. It’s noteworthy that Wikipedia however, doesn’t point out the origin of such laws: God’s word.

“Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.” – Colossians 2:18

“the devil took [Yeshua] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” – Matthew 4:8-10

“I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” – 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

“who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:20-21

Update: 6-16-2011

Yesterday, after having written the above (except Romans 9:20-21 which I added while adding this note), I finally realized the solution to what was a long and great mystery to me: “Is the human will and all wills “random” (because random would seem to be the result of ‘not controlled’, in other words, not a machine that is just programming or being moved around by God directly or indirectly), and is randomness necessary, and if random, how could God predict what would happen in the future correctly? And is a random will necessary for self-awareness and responsibility for the actions of the person who makes choices using their will?” God’s word had the answer all along. First of all, it makes it clear that God predestines everything (and the claim that God doesn’t predestine anyone to Hell is stupid). God doesn’t destine some things and others allow to be loose, random and free to do whatever. Second, there is no evidence that a will must be random in order for a person to be aware of themselves and that their choices and to be responsible for them.

“To humans belong the plans of the heart” – Proverbs 16:1

“A person’s steps are directed by Yahweh” – Proverbs 20:24

“In Yahweh’s hand the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” – Proverbs 21:1