Predicted hot spot from water vapor forcing is missing
Claim 3. Carbon dioxide is important because it has a forcing effect on other factors such as water vapor which magnify warming effects.
Truth: Since the atmospheric absorption of CO2 is already near saturation, (see previous post), very little additional heating can take place due to increased CO2. Contrary to AGW advocates, increased water vapor from warming doesn’t stay as vapor to trap heat near the surface. It forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect solar heat back out into space, overwhelming any trapped re-radiation from the Earth and having an overall cooling effect. The models, which assume water vapor remains as vapor, predict an atmospheric “hot spot” at middle altitudes. Weather balloons and satellites have failed to find this assumed hot spot, which is the signature of atmospheric forcing of global warming in computer models. Due to low altitude clouds reflecting sunlight back into space, any feedback is negative (cooling), not positive (warming) as assumed in computer models. For earlier posts, go to http:realscienceblog.com
CO2 Enhanced Plant Growth Rates – Chart Source: Review Article “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W. Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)
a.) Animals exhale CO2 and breathe in O2, while plants use CO2 for photosynthesis and “exhale” O2. Professional greenhouses often add extra CO2 to increase growth rates. Increased plant growth removes much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Between pre-industrial and present times, studies show an average of 15 percent increase in plant growth rates, with some species increased many times that, e.g, young pine trees. Increased plant growth rates and wider distribution of arable (farmable) land due to warming as well as improved farming practices can solve the so-called overpopulation problem.
b.) Critics created the “progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis,” which assumes that increased growth rates of trees would deplete poor soils of nitrogen, thus mediating the positive effects of increased CO2. This is a scenario based on an unproven hypothesis, not reality, which stubbornly refuses to support the hypothesis. Many studies[1] show that, contrary to the hypothesis, although roots grow deeper and produce more fine hairs, soil and forest floor are enriched in nitrogen from biological sources, ie, increased root mass and leaf litter supporting beneficial microbes in the soil. Deeper roots with more fine hairs also make plants mean enhanced tolerance to dryer conditions. (also see next item)
c.) One benefit of increased CO2 is that the stomata (openings) of leaves, which take in CO2 and emit water vapor and oxygen, are reduced, leading to less water loss, enhanced water use and improved tolerance to dryer conditions. At elevated CO2 levels, stomata do not need to be open as far to allow sufficient CO2 in for photosynthesis and, as a result, less water is lost through transpiration[2]. In controlled studies, an additional benefit of reduced stomata openings is a reduction in ozone damage.
d.) The increased rate of growth of plants, from forests to sea algae, results in more of certain cooling aerosols being produced. These include Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) from soil and seas that become highly reflective sulfate in the stratosphere to reflect more solar radiation back into space; iodo-compounds[3] from sea algae that nucleate clouds to reflect more solar radiation back into space; and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), from seas that nucleates clouds as well as other aerosols such as isoprene from trees with similar effects.
The increase in carbon dioxide is greening many arid regions because of more efficient use of water and the increased growth rate. Sub-Saharan Africa is blooming, the Amazonian jungle is flourishing and global vegetative cover is increasing. The effect on ocean phytoplankton is equally as dramatic. Significant reduction of carbon dioxide levels as proposed by the various climate agreements would have a detrimental effect on plant growth and consequently food supplies. A concentration of 150 ppm is too low for photosynthesis to occur and plants die.
Hormesis Diagram with CO2 concentration on the horizontal axis vs plant growth rate
Hormesis is a phenomenon, commonly seen in medicine and nutrition, where a low or moderate concentration or dose results in a positive effect, but a larger dose results in damage. For instance, some salt and water are necessary to good health, but beyond a certain point, ingesting more can be harmful or fatal. The effect of CO2 on plant life appears to be one such system. Increased CO2 obviously benefits plant life, but it is uncertain at what level CO2 might have a detrimental effect on growth. In professional greenhouses and experiments, even ten times the current level is still beneficial.
[1] Example: Phillips, R.P., Finzi, A.C. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2011. “Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO2 fumigation”. Ecology Letters14: 187-194.
[2] See review article of research papers: “Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO2 enrichment” Kimball, B.A., Kobayashi, K. and Bindi, M., Advances in Agronomy77: 293-368 2002.
[3] Iodo-compounds contain iodine derived from seaweed
AGW Claim 2. Manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main cause of global warming
Truth: a.) Carbon dioxide is a minor player in any further warming. It is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere but only absorbs infrared (heat) in a very narrow wavelength range. The CO2 wavelength range is outside the range of most of the solar radiance that penetrates our atmosphere. It falls roughly inside the wavelength range of temperatures re-radiated when solar radiation heats the Earth’s surface.
The atmospheric CO2 already absorbs almost all of the radiation that it can in that wavelength range. Most of the warming effect of CO2 has already occurred in the past and is one of the reasons our planet is not a frozen wasteland. Any increase in CO2 will have a very minor effect. With CO2 absorption near saturation, almost all of the re-radiated heat in that wavelength range is already being trapped, so it can have little or no effect on future increases in temperature or supposed forcing of water vapor. (will be explained in claim 3 analysis in future posts.) With CO2 essentially eliminated as a source, any increase in temperature must be from other sources.
This figure above requires a bit of explaining. The top spectrum shows the wavelengths at which the atmosphere transmits light and heat as well as the blackbody idealized curves for no absorption. It is a little misleading because the data is not based on actual solar and earth data. It is based on two experimental heat sources, one centered at 5525 K (5252o C or 9485o F), the approximate temperature of solar radiation, and one centered in the range of 210 to 310 K (-63o C to 36.8o C or -82oF to 98o F), the approximate temperature range of re-radiated heat from the earth. In reality, solar radiation power, (Watts/m2/micron), is six million times as strong as the power of re-radiated heat from the Earth.
The other spectra are absorption[1] spectra. The first one shows the relative percent absorption by total atmospheric gases at various wavelengths, (note that this spectrum is practically the inverse of the transmission spectrum above it), and the spectra below that show the absorption wavelength ranges of individual atmospheric gases, (but not the relative strength of that absorption in reality). As experimental, not real atmospheric, data they can only tell us the wavelength ranges of the absorption, not their relative strengths in the atmosphere.
Note that CO2 absorbs in the 15 micron range[2], which is within both the range of re-radiated heat and the strong absorption by water vapor, of which the CO2 peak forms a mere shoulder. CO2, in the atmosphere is evenly distributed and is near-saturation level at this wavelength. That means that little if any re-radiated heat can escape through the blanket of CO2, which is why our earth is not a frozen wasteland. This also mean that adding more CO2 will have little effect on future temperatures. Lesser CO2 peaks in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron ranges only contribute in a minor way. The first is completely covered by a water vapor absorption peak and the second forms a shoulder in another water vapor peak. These minor peaks occur in a region where both solar radiation and re-radiation are minimized. Methane and nitrous oxide are also shown to be minor players, having narrow absorption ranges and are at low concentrations in the atmosphere. Note too that ozone blocks most of the ultraviolet light from the sun.
b.) Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas/liquid in the form of vapor, high and low altitude clouds, rain and snow, which both absorb and reflect in-coming sunlight and re-radiated heat from the surface. Water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, being concentrated near the earth, it strongly absorbs heat in a wide range of wavelengths. More heat means more water vapor evaporating from the oceans. Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Contrary to what is assumed by climate modelers, who use this to claim forcing by CO2, the extra vapor doesn’t remain as vapor. It quickly forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect in-coming sunlight and heat into space. Any re-radiated heat from the surface that may be trapped by clouds is a small fraction compared to the in-coming solar radiation, so blocking solar radiation has a net cooling effect that overwhelms any increases in trapped re-radiation. High altitude clouds tend to trap heat from being re-radiated into space, but have little effect because the increases in cloud cover due to warming are mostly in low altitude clouds.
c.) Methane, like CO2, only absorbs heat in narrow wavelength ranges far from most of solar heat radiance, so that water, with its broad absorbance spectrum, trumps all other greenhouse gases. Like CO2, methane is at or near its absorbance saturation point in the atmosphere so that increases would have little effect. While it is true that continued warming could result in release of methane from melting permafrost, it would have a relatively minor effect on global temperatures. Methane is derived mostly from decaying organic material and from natural seeps on the land and under the sea, as well as termites and ruminant flatulence. Methane absorbs 29 times as much heat per volume as carbon dioxide but at 1.8 ppbv[3], (.00000018 percent), compared to CO2 at 380 ppmv[4], (0.038 percent), it is recognized as a minor player in greenhouse warming along with Ozone (O3) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
CO2 Solubility in Water vs Temperature
d.) Manmade carbon dioxide is estimated to be about 5 percent (1/20th) of the total CO2 emitted. Animals and man are relatively minor contributors. Decaying organic matter is the major source, followed by volcanic activity and release from warmer oceans. Warmer water releases more CO2 than cooler water due to decreased solubility of CO2 with rising temperature. Many studies show that atmospheric CO2 concentration rises AFTER warming, not before. So which is the cause and which is the effect?
See next post for the beneficial effects of CO2 on plant life.
[1] Transmission and Absorption are inversely related by the formula A = 1/log T.
[2] The horizontal axis is a log scale in microns so that the 1 to 10 range is in units of 1 and the 10 to 70 range is in tens.
Global Temperatures 2500 BC to 2040 AD (projected) Note: Temperature range is less than plus or minus 2.5oF (1.4oC) from present.
Part 2 of answers to AGW Claim 1. “Global warming and/or climate change are established facts.” See “Anthropogenic Global Warming vs. Truth – Part 1” blog post for Part 1.
Quote: “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.”
— Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
1872 John Tyndall measured the heat absorption of various atmospheric gases over the entire wavelength range of his heat source. He found that water vapor and CO2 absorbed more strongly than other atmospheric gases such as oxygen and nitrogen. Oxygen and nitrogen, major components of the atmosphere, had little or no absorption of heat in the range tested. It is important to note that his experiments did not separate the heat into specific wavelengths. See Claim 2 and its chart in the next blog post.
Quote: “…if, as the above experiments indicated, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid [CO2] diffused through the air… they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.”
— John Tyndall, Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat, 1872
1895, February, The New York Times: “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”
1899, Nils Eckholm claims that burning coal will double CO2 and cause climate change. Eckholm and Svante Arrhenius claim that it will prevent a predicted coming Ice Age. From Historical Perspectives on Climate Change by James Rodger Fleming, 1998, Oxford University Press.
1902, Los Angeles Times: “Disappearing Glaciers … persistency that means their final annihilation …”
1912, October, The New York Times: “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age”
1923, Chicago Sun-Times: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada”
1923, The Washington Post: “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and southward advance of glaciers … possible advent of a new ice age.”
1924, September, The New York Times: “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”
1929, Los Angeles Times: “Is another ice age coming?” “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”
1932, The Atlantic magazine, “This Cold, Cold World”
1933, March, The New York Times, “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise.”
1933, National Weather Bureau Monthly Weather Review: “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather … Is our climate changing?”
1938, Royal Meteorological Society Quarterly Journal: (Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide) “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind …”
1938, Chicago Tribune, “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise … mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades.”
1939, The Washington Post: “… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
1952, August, The New York Times: “… the world has been getting warmer in the last half century.”
1954, U.S. News and World Report: “… winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.”
1954. Fortune magazine: “Climate – the Heat May Be Off”
1955, Gilbert Plass predicts 3.6o C (6.8o F) warming if CO2 is doubled.
Quote: “ … average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6o C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled …” (this is the false assumption on which many computer models rest)
Quote: “The extra CO2, released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO2 theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries.”
—Gilbert Plass, 1956, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change.” [1]
1956, October 28, The New York Times: “Warmer Climate on Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air,” by Waldemar Kaempffert in The New York Times “Science in Review”
1959, The New York Times: “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
1969, February, The New York Times: “… the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become open sea within a decade or two.”
1970, The Washington Post: “… get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come … there’s no relief in sight.”
1974, Time magazine: “Global cooling for the past forty years”
1974, The Washington Post: “… weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
1974, Fortune magazine: “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed.”
1974, The New York Times: “… the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure … mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence.” (emphasis added)
1975, The New York Times: “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”
1975, Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist in International Wildlife Magazine: “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” (emphasis added)
1976, U.S. News and World Report: “Even US farms may be hit by cooling trend”
1981, The New York Times: (Global Warming) “… of an almost unprecedented magnitude”
1988, James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testifies before Congress that global warming is a fact and that consequences of doing nothing will be dire.
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established by the United Nations in that year with the mission to find a connection between human activity and climate change. (emphasis added)
After that, the media blitz of articles supporting the belief in global warming or climate change are too numerous to list in detail here.
Quote: “The 1995 IPCC draft report said, ‘Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.’ It also said, ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.’ Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.'” (emphasis added)
— “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” Caltech Michelin Lecture, Michael Crichton, 1/17/2003
Quote:“I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming.” (emphasis added)
— Stephen Schneider, (warmist camp), former Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, in “Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities,” Scientific American, January 2002, an article requested by the publisher to critique Bjorn Borg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist
Quote: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.
To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” (emphasis added. Note that the excuse for dishonesty is based on an unsubstantiated assumption that doing so will result in a better world.)
— Stephen Schneider, (warmist camp), former Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, in Discover, 1989
[1] Plass, G. N. (1956), “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change.” Johns Hopkins University Press, Tellus, 8: 140–154. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
The roots of environmentalism go back to the eighteenth century in the form of the overpopulation myth of Malthusianism, which was all about limiting the human population to prevent a predicted Malthusian Catastrophe, i.e. mass starvation, and for genetic purity, especially among supposedly genetically inferior groups e.g. certain races, cultures and the chronically poor. This is based on the progressive beliefs in materialism, (i.e. there is no spiritual side, only the material we can see and touch), and humanism, (i e. man is the measure of everything and determines morals to suit his circumstances). From these progressive philosophies grew socialism, communism, fascism, the eugenics[1] movement and environmentalism, all of which are about control of the masses by an elite few, and all are basically anti-human, anti-development and anti-freedom.
In 1798 Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principles of Population[2] in which he predicted future starvation based on the assumption that the rate of population growth would far surpass the growth rate of food supplies. Using this, he proposed draconian measures to “fix” an assumed overpopulation problem at a time when world population was below one billion. Malthus made two major erroneous assumptions:
Genetic inferiority and enhanced fertility of less accomplished peoples
No improvement in crop yields per acre.
He assumed that the only way to grow more food was to increase the number of acres under cultivation, which limited the total “carrying capacity” of any region and indeed the world. We now know that yields have improved by orders of magnitude through things such as introduction of more prolific, disease resistant plant varieties and high yield hybrids, nitrogen and mineral fertilization, mechanization and control of insect and rodent pests. Nor did he foresee the natural reduction of family size that usually occurs when people are raised beyond near-starvation subsistence, and when diseases are controlled so that high childhood mortality is reduced.
Using these false assumptions as a “reason,” he advocated government measures to reduce population growth rates among the poor such as regulating marriage, educating for moral abstinence, as well as birth control and sterilization. However, he opposed nutritional relief and improved hospital access that would have reduced infant mortality and extended life spans among the poor. In his opinion, helping the poor only made the supposed overpopulation problem worse. He extended this same philosophy to Africa where he observed that the Tsetse fly and Malaria helped to keep human population numbers and lifespans low, which he saw as a good thing.
This same upside down philosophy persists today among progressives who only typically want to manage the poor while keeping them poor. Malthus was pushing evolution and eugenics long before Charles Darwin[3] and Frances Galton[4]. In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin assumed that the superior races (white Europeans) would eventually cause the extinction of the inferior races (black and brown). Francis Galton coined the term eugenics for a theory about improving the human race through selective breeding and exclusion from reproduction of supposedly genetically inferior groups.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.
—Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
Because genetic inferiority of certain races, cultures and the poor has largely been rejected by more enlightened geneticists and the public in general, (but apparently not for powerful population control supporters), along with vastly improved food production rates, environmentalism is the latest cause celebre to cover brutal inhumanity to man in the form of forced or coerced population control in places like China, lndia and Africa. The shift from eugenics or racial purity to environmentalism is based on the false assumption that the world is overpopulated, resulting in harm to the environment. This makes environmentalism and population control a perfect match and a good fit for the progressive elite seeking control.
Is it true that the world overpopulated? Only if agriculture had remained as it was in the eighteenth century. However, the advances in crop yields are more than enough to feed the world. There is more than enough food for all. The reason for starvation and poor nutrition is usually political mismanagement or worse, such as well-meaning environmental and population control philanthropic societies, NGOs, UN and local governments intentionally keeping the poorest in their disease ridden squalor without adequate infrastructure to provide for basic needs in order to control the people. A healthy and educated population is much harder for a dictator to control and thereby remain in power.
The best way to stabilize population, if that is the goal, is to raise the standard of living by providing employment, transportation, electricity, medical care, education, clean water and adequate food. It is a well known fact that family size is naturally reduced when living standards are improved beyond the point where excess children are needed to insure replacement of those lost in early childhood to disease and malnutrition. It can be argued that the population is too low in many areas to provide the cooperation and man power to provide better facilities without outside aid. Only cities are overpopulated, and that is usually by choice. As population numbers have grown, the world has seen an increase in the standard of living, as reflected in the global GDP per capita, due to division of labor and shared responsibility for both agriculture and developing infrastructure. We should be doing all we can to raise the world’s poor out of poverty. Caring for the environment is the last thing on the minds of people who are having difficulty feeding their children. Raising their standard of living is the best thing we could do to stabilize the population and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the progressives would rather do the opposite for ideological reasons.
I have seen the benefits of higher population and the negative side of low population myself. I grew up in an area of the Appalachian Mountains where population is low. Services that are available in the cities and towns a couple of hours away are not or only marginally available in these mountainous rural areas. Even finding a plumber or electrician is difficult. Although the situation is better now because of improvements in highways, many in the area still must travel to the cities for proper medical care. Lower population means lower tax basis, fewer businesses, less opportunity. It has been difficult getting businesses, whether they are medical facilities, manufacturing, commercial or food and entertainment, interested in locating in an area where the customer and workforce base are low. It has been particularly difficult getting doctors to come and stay. It hasn’t been that long since the first fast food restaurant came into the area. I bring this up to illustrate the logic of raising the population to improve living standards. Granted, this is a far cry from poor villages in other countries, but it still illustrates the point that higher population brings higher living standards.
[1] Eugenics is the “science” of improving the human race by selective breeding of genetically superior people and preventing supposedly genetically inferior people from reproducing.
[2] Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, London
[3] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1858, London, The Descent of Man, 1871
Philosophically there are only three reasons for existence or action: necessity, chance and design.
Everything in the physical realm has a beginning, an end and a cause. Nothing physical is permanent. Everything changes as a result of causes and are thus contingent on preceding events. If everything has a cause, then an endless series of causes into the past is the result. Of necessity, there must have been a beginning of the series of causes and effects. But what started the series? If everything in the physical universe has a cause, then something outside of the physical universe, by necessity, must have started the series of causes. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why does anything exist? It must have been caused by something. God or The Creator, by whatever name you wish to use, is the necessary first cause, the uncaused cause and everything else is contingent on it. Therefore God is a necessary being that is eternal, having no cause, no beginning, and no end.
Since something outside the physical universe necessarily started the series of cause and effect, it also voids the assumption of the materialists that the physical universe is all there is; that the non-physical or spiritual only exists in our imagination. Of necessity, there must be a spiritual realm because, of necessity, something outside the physical must have started the series of causes. This is a very old, but very valid argument for the necessary existence of God. Atheists and materialists will dismiss it as “old news” but it is as valid today as it was when St. Thomas Aquinas included it in his Summa Theologica as one of the proofs of God.
If God started the whole thing, including existence, was it a singular act of creation which was then left to develop by itself without guidance? It can be argued that the present form of the universe is a matter of chance and only LOOKS designed. It can also be argued that life came about by chance through some undefined “Life Principle” and only LOOKS designed. Neither of these chance occurrences holds up to scientific or statistical scrutiny. The physical universe is so finely tuned that if any of the fundamental forces or particles were changed by an infinitesimal amount, then stable galaxies, stars, planets and life would not have formed.
Life is a particularly complex and fine-tuned process and we are only just beginning to explore the workings of living creatures. For example, the probability of assembling one specific protein chain of 200 readily available amino acid units, from the 20 left-handed amino acids used in living systems is 1 in 20200. To be plausible, the number of attempts must be in the ballpark of the odds. If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, there have been 4.32 x 1017 seconds since it began. We would need to make 231.4 x 10180 attempts each second since the beginning of the universe to make the random assembly of even this one specific protein plausible.
If we assume that life molecules were assembled on Earth, which is thought to be only 4.5 billion years old, and evidence of life was present 3.8 billion years ago, then the number of attempts per second rises to even more impossible levels. And that is just for one protein enzyme assembled from readily available units, excluding interfering molecules, and under the ideal conditions for assembly and preservation. Already we are seeing the extreme odds against a specific enzyme being produced. If we look at what it would take to produce by chance the thousands of different specific enzymes necessary for metabolism, the probability of random assembly of the correct mix would be (20200)3000 for a simple bacterium with 3,000 enzymes, or 1 in 10780,000; that’s a 1 with 780,000 zeros after it. The terms impossible and miracle come to mind.
If chance is so improbable, then design or intent is a more plausible explanation for life and, indeed, the universe. The argument for intelligent design is that of impossibly high odds against the specified complexity we find. A design necessarily implies a designer. Not just any enzyme would perform the metabolic functions of even the simplest living being. It must be a specific mix of specific enzymes with specific functions. That does not even address the formation of a living being, which is many orders of magnitude more complex than the formation of simple enzymes or structural proteins or DNA.
What do we really know about our world? What is fact and what is opinion? What is knowledge and what is belief, and can we know the difference? Isn’t science about facts and religion about faith? Well, not entirely. Science, with all of its trappings of mathematics, still is subject to interpretation, ie, belief, based on assumptions. There is as much faith in science as in anything else we do. Consensus and computer models do not change a belief into a fact.
DO WE KNOW:
that there was a Big Bang that started the universe?
that black holes, parallel universes, exotic dark matter or dark energy exist ?
how all of the elements and physical laws originated?
how the galaxies, stars, the solar system, planets, the Earth or the moon were formed?
the true distances to other galaxies?
the age of the universe, our galaxy or the Earth?
that the universe, including space itself, is expanding?
that the fourth dimension or multiple dimensions exist?
that a dimension known as space-time exists?
what gravity is?
what time is?
what life is?
that life spontaneously arose from a soup of chemicals?
that all species evolved gradually from a common ancestor?
that the mind is just a program created by the brain?
what consciousness, thought or memory are?
what sleep is?
what instinct is?
why we have free will and are not just robotic slaves to our genes?
why we have abilities and skills that are not necessary or are detrimental to survival?
The answer to most of these and many other questions about science and our understanding of our world is MAYBE, NO, or PROBABLY NOT.
The bad news is that we don’t know as much as we thought we knew.
The good news is that we don’t know as much as we thought we knew.
Bringing some accepted scientific “facts” or the evidence supporting them into question will not tear down our knowledge base. On the contrary, it will open doors to more exciting discoveries, unconstrained by fixed paradigms[1]or established systems into which they must be fitted. By questioning everything, we can look at all things with fresh eyes and with minds open to all possibilities, regardless of established beliefs. This should lead to more scientific study and discoveries, not less. Robust scientific theories and real facts will be strengthened by such questioning.
Only the theories without proper basis or support will suffer. Even those will benefit from fresh approaches that may come closer to solving some of the remaining mysteries than is currently possible. It is to our benefit that true understanding can develop unconstrained by dogma[2]. Fixed dogma tends to constrain and inhibit new knowledge, especially if the new knowledge does not fit neatly into the established picture.
“Michael Faraday warned against the tendency of the mind ‘to rest on an assumption’ and when it appears to fit in with other knowledge to forget that it has not been proved.”
W. I. B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation
[1] Paradigm – A picture or view of reality into which all facts and beliefs must fit.
[2] Dogma –established opinion put forth as authoritative, especially without adequate grounds.
The apparent movement of sun and planets with Earth as center Giovanni Domenico Cassini, 1625–1712
Behind all other philosophies, there are two basic ways of looking at the universe, the materialistic and the transcendental views.
NOTE: Do not confuse transcendental as used here with the so-called Transcendentalism movement of the nineteenth century which was really a Naturalistic or agnostic philosophy.
NOTE: Materialism, in the philosophical sense, is not the love of things as the term is used today, having been corrupted by the popular culture. It is really the denial of the existence of anything beyond the material world.
The materialist view says the physical universe that we see and interact with is all that there is, and it is its own explanation for being. The transcendent view says there must be something more behind and above it all, an overarching force that is responsible for existence itself and the physical laws that give order to the universe. This blog reflects my transcendental beliefs that there must be something beyond the material that is beyond the reach of science. As a transcendentalist and a scientist, I have no reservations about science and religion being compatible.
“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.”
Albert Einstein
Since materialists only believe in what they can see and touch, pure materialists are necessarily atheists and have a great deal of reservations about religion, especially as it relates to science. Even the agnostic, who is uncertain about a transcendent quality to the universe, is not comfortable with the notion that science and religion are compatible, since he believes that there is no way for us to know about anything outside the material world.
Joke: What do you get when you cross an insomniac agnostic and a dyslexic? Answer: A person who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.
Chico Marx (often attributed to Groucho Marx)
Science is the pursuit of truth about the predictable, repeatable and measurable aspects of the universe with which we can or could conceivably interact[1].
Anything beyond that is not science but philosophy, no matter how much mathematics or “supporting” data is attached. A one-time event that cannot be tested or repeated, such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life cannot be elucidated purely through science.
Materialists/atheists sometimes use the fact that we can only observe and test the physical world as proof that there is nothing else beyond that. Although science, in its truest sense, is an unbiased quest for the truth, that does not mean the people in the sciences are always unbiased or have no hidden agendas outside of science. Similarly, although religion seeks answers from a God centered perspective, man’s interpretations of God’s revealed truth may at times lead to error through misunderstandings or cultural bias.
As a Christian, I believe God’s revelations in the Bible are true, but I also believe that man’s interpretations can sometimes be wrong. An example of this from history is the supposed flat-Earth belief in the European Middle Ages, (which, by the way, is a nineteenth century myth[2]). Those few holding this belief had interpreted “… the four corners of the earth,” in Isaiah[3] and Revelation[4] to mean the Earth had four literal corners and was thus flat. What was obviously meant were the four directions.
Even at that time, the belief in a flat Earth was not widespread and a spherical Earth had been common knowledge[5] especially for sailors who clearly saw the curvature of the horizon and saw sails appear over it before the ships appeared. It was evident in earlier ages that the Earth cast a circular shadow on the moon, especially during lunar eclipses. The ancient Greeks and other cultures in antiquity knew the Earth was a sphere and actually calculated its circumference by triangulation.
“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
Contrary to what you may have been taught, true science and Christianity are thoroughly compatible, and Christians have contributed greatly to the foundations of science. Anyone who believes in God must also believe that God invented science and gave us the ability to understand the laws of the universe. More than any other religion, Christianity taught that God had created an orderly, understandable universe that obeys natural laws. In this view, it is left to individuals to discover what that order and those laws are.
Science seeks the truth of WHAT, WHERE, WHEN and HOW things happen.
Religion seeks the truth of WHY things happen, WHO might have caused them and for “what” ultimate Purpose.
Therefore, we would not expect science to say anything at all about the why and who of religion, or for religion to necessarily seek spiritual answers in the what, where and how of science. The two are separate but complementary parts of the whole picture. They both seek to understand our “world” but approach it from different directions. Some agenda driven scientists who campaign against a belief in God have stepped beyond science into what amounts to a religion of evangelical atheism, which is also based on faith. Just because science can only study the material world does not mean there is nothing else outside it that is beyond the reach of science.
Because they choose not to believe in God or miracles, materialist atheists choose to define a miracle as breaking the physical laws of the universe. However, it is not necessary for God to break and act outside of his own physical laws to do things we don’t understand based on our limited knowledge and beliefs. Based on superior knowledge of a system he invented, God can use the natural laws in unique ways to do things seemingly impossible perhaps even including manipulating time and space. Similarly, magic acts appear to break the laws of logic but are really doing something else that is hidden from the audience.
A closed minded, dogmatic scientist is an oxymoron[6] and is not a true scientist at all regardless of her credentials. Science is a developing discipline where new knowledge sometimes radically changes accepted theories. The universe is filled with mysteries and unanswered or unanswerable questions. A true scientist must keep an open mind about all possibilities and admit that some things are not known or not even knowable. It is not necessary to make up clever stories to compensate for the missing knowledge, much less teach such speculative beliefs as settled science. It is OK to say “I don’t know” unless you are pushing an agenda other than truth. When scientists fill in gaps in knowledge with clever “just-so” stories, it is a Science of the Gaps[7] and is not science at all.
As a scientist, I use the tools of science to search for truth about our world. I think it is safe to say that there are prejudices and fiercely held beliefs on both sides. But beliefs are not facts no matter how many are convinced that they are true. It makes no sense to hold on to a view that has been shown to be in error, simply because it is “accepted and established.” Nor is it useful to stoop to name calling, slurs and other put-downs of those on the other side of an issue. Consensus is alien to science and is only properly used for opinions, not facts, in cultural and political settings. Consensus can lead into egregious errors. Remember, before Copernicus and Galileo the consensus was that the entire universe revolved around the Earth. Truth is never the result of a popular vote.
“To be a faultless member of the flock, first one must be a sheep.”
Albert Einstein
Nowhere is it more evident today than in the subjects of evolution and the origins of life and the universe. Both sides of these questions are often so steeped in their own emotional capital that their judgment and willingness to honestly debate may be clouded. For some, there are no grounds for discussion, much less any compromises. The other side is often viewed as either evil, ignorant or having sinister hidden motives. Science by definition is the quest for truth about our world; it has no business being closed minded and dogmatic to the point of preaching against religious belief or God based on materialist beliefs and prejudices.
The actions of a scientist are closer to a religion than true science when he insists that religion is bad and that everyone must believe as he does. Unfortunately, evangelical atheism has often used science to further its “religion.” This has also been true of the Progressive and Socialist political agendas that often go hand in hand with it. Both philosophies have effectively used the all too gullible press as a weapon in their war on both religion and truth. It is impossible to separate science, politics, popular culture, religion and the role of the press in the search for truth. They are all irreversibly entangled.
Because evolution is such an emotionally charged subject, when I started to write my book I was inclined to give it a minor role compared to other mysteries. However, when I studied it further from all sides, I realized that evolution was the beginning of and the role model for promoting most of the later dogma disguised as science, and belief disguised as truth. Its presentation in the popular press rather than peer reviewed scientific journals[8], the political style of rhetoric used to promote it, and the types of defensive arguments employed, taught later generations how to promote their points of view in other fields. In many areas, science has been hijacked by materialists who promote progressive and anti-God views through philosophical story-telling disguised as science.
Evolution is also a good example of entrenched dogma that the adherents insist must be accepted without question. As such, it is closer to myth than science. Science is never chiseled in stone. It is a changing discipline where nothing and no one are held sacred or inviolable. New knowledge is always to be encouraged and should never be seen as a threat. If any area of science does stifle dissenting views, it is not science anymore; it is a religion or at least a strongly held philosophy. Unfortunately, the fields of evolution, origin of life, cosmology and particle physics have become so dogmatic that dissent or differing views are attacked, defunded and blocked from publication in scientific journals.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
Albert Einstein
[1]The Capricious Cosmos by Joe Rosen, 1991, Macmillan, New York.
[2] Popularized in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, 1828, by Washington Irving.
[3] Bible: Isaiah 11:12 – “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (King James version)
[4] Bible: Revelation 7:1 – “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” (King James version)
[5] Bible: Isaiah 40:22 – “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants therof are as grasshoppers; that streatcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” also Job 26: 7 – “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (King James version)
[6] Oxymoron – a combination of contradictory or incongruous words such a “cruel kindness”
[7] A takeoff on the God of the Gaps claim of atheists to characterize any belief in a creator or design.
[8] Except for the original verbal presentation of a paper on the subject to the Linnean Society.
A progressive, anti-God mindset has come to dominate science and many other aspects of our world. Magical thinking, hidden agendas and protection of turf have replaced the need and the pursuit of truth.
The progressive monopoly relies on three things: academia, media and government funding. Academia, rather than being the open forum for discussing diverse ideas it should be, has become a closed priesthood where dissenting opinions are repressed, punished and blocked from funding and from academic publication by biased editors and peer reviewers. The popular press, whether print or electronic, is gullible and all too eager to parrot the standard line of SQR (Status Quo Regurgitators) without question. This includes the entertainment industry. Government funding grants aimed at supporting the standard line and controlled by SQR department heads, control what research can and cannot be done.
Solutions:
A public awareness of the problems is needed, leading to an open debate and holding accountable those blocking the free pursuit of truth. More, not less, research and discovery would result. Daylight is a good disinfectant.
It will be very difficult to break through the progressive monopoly and inform the people of the problem so it may take a generation. That is why books like this are important. It is one more way to chip away at the imposing edifice of the progressive monopoly.
The public must demand that academic departments allow and encourage questions, debates and alternative research.
Peer reviewed publications must be held accountable for bias and advocacy that blocks publication of valid research based on alternative views.
The popular press and the entertainment industries must be held accountable by an informed public for biased reporting and propaganda disguised as entertainment.
Government funding should be minimized and scrutinized to assure that meaningful research is done and that outcomes reflect the unbiased truth.
Educate yourself so you can use logic and facts, not emotional appeals in the debate. Arguing based on the Bible won’t help your case with those that don’t believe; it will only give your opponents ammunition to claim that you are anti-science and superstitious. Stick to facts and logic. Find and support those publications, websites and blogs that point out bias and give voice to alternative views as one way of educating yourself. Be discerning about internet information sources so you don’t get misled by illogical, unsupported wild speculation on either side. Learn to recognize the difference between opinion and facts. Start blogs of your own to give others an outlet for dissent. Read the books and visit the websites in the bibliography of this book.
Tactics – Direct Confrontation:
This new challenge for each of us to reveal the truth won’t be easy. As a matter of fact, because of the typically harsh and defensive responses of the progressives, it will sometimes be downright unpleasant. Most people will avoid confrontation on those grounds, preferring to avoid conflict and remain silent. Many are aware of the problem, or at least some part of it, but few are bold enough to stand up to the elitist bullies who call them names, disparage their character and engage in hate-filled diatribes. Remember, it’s not about you. It’s about them defending their fragile egos, their territories and their control of the situation.
They will try to make you defensive and emotional like they are by attacking your character and intelligence. The key to discussing anything with them, assuming they are at all willing, is to remain calm and logical, not emotional (offended, hurt, angry, etc.). Don’t let them put you on the defensive. Stand your ground and continue to ask your questions and make your logical points in a relatively nonthreatening manner. As long as they don’t actually hit you, their tantrums and accusations mean nothing. If they manage to get you to address the issue emotionally, you have lost at least half of your argument. Not only will you be mischaracterized, but in any argument (discussion) when emotion enters, logic goes out the window.
For those of you who are confident enough, I would encourage you to enter those very debates without fear or dread with business-like or diplomatic composure. It may be useful to start with quiet discussions on milder aspects of their beliefs in private so they do not feel obligated to defend themselves in public. By all means, don’t try to defend yourself or give them counter examples to illustrate that you are not guilty of whatever their accusations are. You would be wasting your breath, falling into their trap and giving them ammunition to shoot back at you. By putting you on the defensive they have achieved half of their goal of sidetracking the discussion and making you look foolish. Their favorite game is “Got Ya!”
Let the vitriol flow over you without obvious effect. Address the facts and the possibility that their thinking might have some logical flaws or blind spots. When they lose their composure or spew slanderous remarks, that is a sign that you are on the right track because they are attempting to use intimidation to shut you up. Remain calm and repeat your point in a gentle, composed manner. Point out the logic of both points of view without sinking to their emotional level. Whatever the outcome, thank them for being willing to discuss the issue.
If you are a student, you may have to repeat the status quo line and not be too outspoken until after you get your passing grade. Remember, the professor is protecting his image to the rest of the class. In those cases, it is probably best to wait until the class is over to raise your questions in private and in a relatively non-threatening way if at all. You will have to gradually judge their tolerance for dissenting voices to see how far you can go in educating them. Some have such fragile egos that you will not be able to engage them at all. They may be unwilling to discuss their beliefs, so some finesse may be required to keep the door to communication open. Some, however, will be at least somewhat open to discussion of their beliefs.
Department heads or deans need to hear from students about those professors who are abusing their positions to proselytize or indoctrinate instead of teach. If no one complains, these leaders really don’t know what is going on. One complaint may not have any effect, but complaints from numerous students may have some effect in reining in such abuse. Talk among other students and compare notes about the professor’s behavior. Encourage others to also complain, preferably after the course is completed.
Tactics – Indirect Campaigns:
Start contacting those who control the message and the money. Write letters, emails, comment on social media, websites or blogs and phone those who can affect change. Contact members of Congress, heads of government departments, academic deans and heads of academic departments, media producers and editors, as well as advertisers of biased media. Let them know that you do not accept the bias that is exhibited. Give logical arguments for free exchange of ideas and discussions of logical alternatives. One person contacting them may not have much effect, but numerous contacts cannot be ignored. Most of these leaders and politicians assume that one letter from a proactive person represents opinions of many others not willing or able to speak out.
To be scientific, a theory must deal only with the matter or processes with which we can or possibly could interact, it must be verifiable, falsifiable and testable, and it should predict future outcomes based on experimental data. What question could possibly be asked to make Evolution falsifiable? Until recently we would say None. As we have seen, Evolution allows for survival of Panchronic species throughout time, but also allows for change through slight modifications. Neither can falsify the philosophy, so it is not science by this criteria.
“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 out no such case.”
— Charles Darwin
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
— Charles Darwin
What about the biochemical complexity? If you include that, and allow that some structures or processes could not possibly be built up through generations of gradual change, could that falsify Evolution? Potentially, yes. The almost infinitely complex biochemistry of the cell, rather than supporting Evolution, is the greatest challenge to it. The more that we discover about the biochemistry of processes within living things, the less likely it is that undirected Evolution is the only or any explanation at all. Since each gradual step in a series of changes would have to make the organism more fit than its predecessors many generations before the resulting structure fills the function it will ultimately perform, any step that is not advantageous would not be selected, according to the theory.
OK, then if each step would exist well before the ultimate function, wouldn’t there be in each organism on earth a lot of junk DNA or nonfunctioning proteins or organs? The answer seems obvious: yes. Do we find this? No. As for the proteins that perform all of the functions of the cell, useless or interfering material is usually only found in defective cells causing disease, e.g. PKU or Sickle Cell. Useless enzymes are quickly destroyed if they are formed at all. Enzymes are only produced in response to current needs as defined by a complex system of feedback communication within the cell.
As for DNA, we don’t know yet whether there are actual proto-genes lurking there. Genes, which are sections of DNA wrapped around companion proteins (Histones), are separated by sections of so-called “junk” DNA (Introns) for which we, as yet, know next to nothing about their functions. Could Introns be the missing nonfunctioning proto-genes? Possibly, and that is the assumption of some Evolutionists. But remember that any “junk” must also have a survival advantage over predecessors, so it must function in some way. Regardless of what you may have read in the popular press, we are just scratching the surface on understanding the DNA code (or codes).
The only sections we really know anything about are those that encode for proteins ( about 1%) used as either structural elements or enzymes that perform various cell functions, along with certain signals such as start, stop, zip and unzip used in replication or repair. We don’t even understand why the units encoding for certain enzymes are broken up into sections, sometimes on separate genes along the DNA strand or why the RNA that is assembled from the DNA template is usually cut and/or rearranged before it carries the instructions from the nucleus to the ribosomes where the proteins are assembled from component amino acids. Development is another important area where we lack understanding. How does a fertilized egg differentiate to form a complete creature? We can describe what happens at each step, but have yet to formulate a comprehensive theory of how the instructions are timed, given and received. Much research is being done in this area, but results are sketchy and incomplete at this time.
Intelligent Design and Creationism(s)
If Evolution is a philosophy or belief system and not fully science, what about Intelligent Design, and what is it anyway? Intelligent Design (ID), like Evolution, is a philosophy that uses science as its basis. It is a theory that the very complexity and improbability of the universe and life processes necessarily implies an intelligence or greater principle behind it all. ID does not say what (or who) that intelligence is or connect it with any particular faith based belief system. ID proponents accept the possibility that some of Evolution’s claims are true, but challenge the validity of other conclusions, particularly unguided chance as the only source of biological progress.
If gradual assembly, step by step, of complex systems, from DNA to hearts, by random chance is statistically impossible or implausible, it rules out chance as a cause. That leaves necessity and design as possible causes. ID contends that the very implausibility and complexity strongly imply that some intelligence (design) or as yet undiscovered guiding principle (necessity) must be at work to overcome the statistical barriers. Necessity fits in with the Progressive philosophy of inevitable progress built into the universe. NeoDarwinian Evolution states that life and the universe only LOOK designed[1]. ID is the most significant challenger to Evolutionary theory at this time and some of the observations and experimentally derived facts could eventually lead to falsification or at least modification of Evolution as it is defined today.
The media tend to lump ID and Creationism together because the Evolutionists associate them in an attempt to discredit ID. ID accepts all scientific facts, whether it is the age of the universe and the ages assigned to the fossil record or biochemical or astronomical knowledge. ID acknowledges the appearance of design and infers that it necessarily implies an intelligence or guiding principle. The implication is that of purpose, not blind purposeless chance. This teleological[2] view is one of the things that makes ID a philosophy, not a hard science. However, most of the proponents are competent scientists who use valid scientific principles in scientific studies into the validity or lack of validity of Darwinian Evolution’s random chance claims. Whether Darwinian Evolution or ID is (more) valid, is a matter of opinion at this point. Expressed differently, ID could be an attempt to falsify Evolution as arising only from random chance. Statistical arguments of the improbability of random processes explaining life and complexity are quite convincing. Note that progressivism, espoused by Darwinians, also implies teleology because everything is believed to be naturally progressing toward perfection.
Biblical Creationism comes in two major forms: Young Earth and Old Earth. Young Earth Creationism declares that the universe and the earth were created some 6000 years ago in seven twenty-four hour days by a strictly literal interpretation of Biblical Genesis. Old Earth Creationism accepts the ages of the universe, the earth and the fossil record and interprets the Biblical Genesis account somewhat more figuratively than literally. As such, it is closer to Intelligent Design, but specifies the God of the Bible as the intelligence responsible for it all. A subdivision within Old Earth Creationism is one that assumes a literal seven day creation (or seven epochs) after the initial billions of years needed to form the universe and prepare the earth for that event. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1 is assumed to contain all of the history of the universe, the earth and the fossil record that had already taken place before the creation event that formed modern humans. This is sometimes called the Gap Theory, especially by its opponents. I tend to fall into the Old Earth camp, based on scientific probabilities and evidence, while leaving the length of the seven “days” as an open question. The same word is used for a 24 hour period and for an indefinite time period as “in the day of Moses.” “These are the Generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” – Genesis 2:4. Also, in 2 Peter 3:8[3] it is obvious that they did not limit a “day” to 24 hours.
It is easy to see that Creationism, based not on science but Biblical texts, is different from both Evolution and Intelligent Design. While it is true that some who believe in Intelligent Design are also Old Earth Creationists, it is not true for many of ID’s technologically and scientifically astute proponents. As a matter of fact, many proponents of Creationism, especially Young Earth Creationists, oppose Intelligent Design as a distortion and means of explaining away the literal interpretation of Biblical texts that they hold to be infallible. Questioning the literal interpretation of Genesis in this way is seen by them as opposing all of God’s truth in His word. In their opinion, rejection of literal seven day creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is tantamount to saying the Biblical texts, in their entirety, cannot be trusted to be true. In their opinion, rejection of literal seven day creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is tantamount to saying the Biblical texts, in their entirety, cannot be trusted to be true. However, the actual text does not exclude longer periods or preparatory periods occurring before the seven days described except by assumptions of interpretation. As a Christian, I believe in the literal interpretation as God’s inspired word, but recognize that our own understanding may be biased by preconceived assumptions not actually in it. As a scientist, I have to believe reliable scientific data, but question its reliability and some of the projections and philosophical assumptions.
Conclusions:
So, where does that leave us? We have three basically different philosophies for the development of the complexities of life, at least two of which base their beliefs on scientific inquiry and knowledge. Which is correct? The jury is still out. Neo-Darwinists see Intelligent Design, with its underpinnings of biochemical complexity and probability theory, as the greatest threat to their beliefs and rightly so. Rather that embrace Evolutionary philosophy and all its claims, ID proponents critically examine the evidence for and against guided and unguided development, including the incredibly complex biochemical nature of life and statistical probabilities of unguided or chance development of complex molecules, structures and functions. If Evolution is a robust theory and the aim is truth, such a challenge should be welcomed as a further development of understanding Evolution. The vitriol with which Evolutionists attack ID proponents can only be interpreted as religiously defending dogma that they feel may be vulnerable.
[1] Richard Dawkins defines biology as “… the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed.”
[2] Teleological definition: (Gk tele or telos = end, purpose) 1a: the study of evidences of design in nature; a doctrine that ends are immanent in nature; 1c: a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes; 2: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose; 3: use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena.
[3] “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8
Science is distorted by progressive philosophy 