Home > creationism, evolution > Is Intelligent Design Compatible With Darwinian Evolution Theory?

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

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: