Some Problems with Evolution Presented to the Author of Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind

Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind

Some problems were posted in the comments section of Professor Dave's debate, which at the time of 20 Feb, 2020, have been deleted.

Without having watched the entire debate I have an objection to evolution.

All biological systems are comprised of causes and effects.

An effect is dependent upon a cause.

What is dependent upon a cause, participates in the cause.

The effect which participates in the cause is less than the cause.

The cause is greater than the effect.

Greater and lesser is a top down system.

A system of causes and effects is a top-down system.

All biological systems are top-down.

The evolutionary tree of life is bottom-up.

All biological systems within the evolutionary tree of life are top-down.

A system that is both top-down and bottom-up is a system comprised of causes and effects both greater and lesser than each other.

What is both greater and lesser than each other in the same respect is a contradiction.

The tree of life is composed of greater and lesser than each other in the same respect.

Therefore the tree of life is composed of many contradictions.

A system of contradictions is impossible.

The tree of life is impossible.

As the tree of life is impossible, evolution from a common ancestor never happened.

Comment - a similar problem occurs in the big bang theory, which is also a bottom-up model. All systems within the big bang are top-down, within a bottom up model. Therefore the model is composed of many contradictions. Therefore the big bang never happened.

Second Post -

Top down follows from cause and effect. A cause has more being than the effect. Hence any system of causes and effects is top down. Or again, cause and effect is - less is from more. Less from more requires all systems to have more and less, which is to have top-down. A system is either top-down or bottom-up. If bottom up, then more from less, and something from nothing, which is impossible. If a system is top down, less is from more and something from something. All systems are top down.

The evolutionary tree of life begins with the common ancestor and moves through tansitionals to the tree tips. The common ancestor is X, the tip is Z=X+Y, where Z>X. The evolutionary tree of life is bottom-up, which is reducible to more from less, or something from nothing. The evolutionary tree of life requires the emergence of biological life to be an impossible superstition. Same problem with the big bang theory and the evolution of the universe. The so called evidence for evolution always requires the entire system to be superstitious in principle. Therefore, no mater how much apparent evidence there is for evolution, such as speciation, natural selection and mutations, the entire system is always false in principle from the false principle of more from less.

Evolution cannot account for sexuality. Biological evolution is modification through descent from a common ancestor. Descent infers a functioning sexuality in a functioning organism. Biological evolution is thereby dependent upon sexuality, which did not evolve. As sexuality is always integrated into the heterogeneous organism with diverse body parts, sexuality always exists within a functioning organism. If a functioning sexuality exists without evolution, the organism with all of its parts also began without evolution. Therefore evolution cannot account for any organ of any biological system.

Evolutionists claim the universe evolved, so everything that exists underwent a process of gradualism. And yet the so called evolving universe is composed of may parts that never evolved, such as mass, gravity, light, space, electricity, magnetism, time, energy, proton, neutron, electron and so on. The eclectic, just so universe of the evolutionists is a universe of selective gradualism created by the evolutionists to do what is required to have gradualism, but ignore gradualism where gradualism is dependent upon statism.

The creation-Evolution debate is reducible to a creation-creation debate. The creationist claims the universe came from the divinity who created all things from nothing, through the infinite power of God. The evolutionist claims the universe evolved through gradualism, which is more from less, and something from nothing. The evolutionist imitates the creation event, but substitutes the divinity for nothing. Evolutionism is thereby a closet creationism without any real creator. Or in other words, evolution is a self creation myth.

Many other objections can be made to evolution which are never given any robust response. For example,

1) irreducible complexity is contrary to gradualism.

2) Mutations are a single cause of evolution common to all organisms which are very diverse. The singularity and diversity of outcome are contrary to each other. 3) Natural selection only acts to reduce biological diversity contrary to the claims of gradualism.

4) The evolutionary theory is set up so no scientist can ever observe evolution at any time, due to the long time required for evolution to have occurred.

5) Evolution requires the support of dating theory which assumes the decay rates are constant over long times, whilst holding that all physical things evolved over time.

6) The fossil record is used to support the theory, whilst the record cannot be known to be in accordance with evolution due to the many unknowns associated with the record.

7) Biological evolution is biological alchemy, causing all biological systems to be a morass of biological monsters not evidenced in the natural world of the beautiful.

8) Evolution is generally based upon naturalism, materialism, rationalism and scientism which are all false world views.

9) Evolutionism always concludes to a false understanding of man as a material thing, when man is actually a composite of body and spiritual soul. The spirituality of the human soul is not accountable within evolutionary theory.

10) Gradualism is sophistry of something from nothing hidden under mutations.

11) Evolution is only a belief without reference to other systems of philosophy and theology that show evolutionism to be false.

12) Evolutionism is reducible to something will change into something diverse from itself through gradualism. And yet according to Aristotle natures are singular and never change from nature to another nature. For example, man has always been and will always be a man, and never anything other than a man.

If you wish to enter into a more robust world view, I invite you to engage the philosophy and theology of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Go to the Gregorian and the Angelicum in Rome and get an education that is more well rounded.

https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-index

https://www.amazon.com/Trinitarian-Christology-St-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0198829094/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=dominic+legge&qid=1581976297&s=books&sr=1-1

I don't expect an coherent response to any of the above statements simply because evolutionism is an incoherent, inconsistent, sophistic world view that is against science, philosophy, theology and the nature of man.

--------------------------

Further comment (21 Feb 2020)

A seed is less than a tree. The growth involved to bring the seed to the tree is a process of nourishment and growth which is top down. Every system is top down. If there is an apparent more from less, the process only ever occurs in a top down system simply because a bottom up system is impossible.

The tree of life however is not apparent, but a real assertion of more from less, without any mechanism to provide the more. The tree of life is a fiction according to the false principle of more from less. In fact the tree of life is so poor that the entire universe is against it. For the universe is real and the real is always less from more, or top down. Every biological population within the tree of life is top down, whilst the tree of life is bottom up. As top down and bottom up are in contradiction to each other, evolution is a theory containing many contradictions.

Furthermore, if a bottom up system process is admitted to conform to evolution, the effect is greater than the cause and the effect is not longer entirely dependent upon the cause. A bottom up system always destroys the definitions of cause and effect and makes the entire system unintelligible. If evolution is true, then all systems are unintelligible and science which seeks to explain the physical world of causes and effects also becomes unintelligible.

Evolution destroys all science.

Large and Small Numbers of Fossils of Species Concludes to Difficulties in Applying the Fossil Record to Support Evolutionary Theory.

The more fossils there are for a particular species at a particular time, the more likely that species became extinct in that are at that time. Consequent to the more fossils of a particular time, place and species, in the geological record the less likely there is any evidence for the evolution of that species. For if the fossils represent an extinction event, there is no evolution of the species. If the fossils represent a large loss of life, there are fewer genes in the gene pool to modify for the subsequent populations. And fewer genes infer less opportunity for modification and new speciation. The more fossils in the geological record at a particular time and place, the less likely there is any evolution of that species.

The fewer fossils there are for a particular species at a particular time, the less likely that causes are known and the less knowledge of heredity to trace any evolution of the species. The fewer the fossils, the less evidence there is for evolution.

Conclusion - if there is a great, or small number of fossils of a species, the existence of evolution is remote or knowledge of the causes of evolution are most uncertain. The fossil record is difficult to apply in support of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is false anyway as the false principle of more from less. So even if the above problems are answered, the fossils can never be used as evidence for a false principle.

On the Sophistry of Evolutionism in Relation to the Fossil Record.

Evolutionists appeal to the fossil record to promote the theory of evolution. They frequently link fossils together that are several million years apart and claim the younger fossil is an ancestor of the older fossil. And yet the fossil record includes the following notions that all mitigate against the evolutionist's claims -

1) Evolution - is claimed but is impossible as a process of more from less. Any claims by the evolutionists for fossil evidence for evolution are always the only claim that is always false.

2) Devolution - Each fossil may have its heredity traced back to a prior and more developed population. Every fossil may be only an indication of universal devolution from the first created populations.

3) Stasis - any group of fossils may have their origin in a population that has not changed very much since the creation event.

4) Extinction - a large number of fossils of one population may indicate that population is extinct and subsequent fossils are derived from another cause.

5) Creation - the fossil record assumes an initial creation event.

6) Agnostic - there are too many causes that are unknown and the interpretation of the fossil record is impossible with any certitude, due to the contingency of many causes.

Option 1 is used by the evolutionists and is the only option that is impossible. Options 2-6 are other, viable alternative explanations for the fossil record. When evolutionists use the fossil record as evidence for the theory, they are being sophistic.

The Problem of Multiple Evolutionist Interpretations of the Same Fossil Record Caused by Devolution and Evolution within the Same Theory.

Because evolutionists often ignore the consequences of their own theory, they quite frequently make statements at odds with their own theory. For example, both evolution and devolution are taught by evolutionists. And yet, when the evolutionists discuss the fossil record and claim fossil evidence for evolution, the evolutionists frequently ignore the possibility of devolution as a causal process within biological history. For devolution within biological history would involve fossils as fossils from more complex populations that existed prior to the less complex fossils. Frequently evolutionists only ever appeal to the fossil record to show evolution and virtually always ignore the possibility of one, several, or multiple devolution events within biological history that preceded any single, or any group of fossils.

In fact, because evolutionists say both devolution and evolution have occurred, there is always more than one possible interpretation of the same fossil record amongst evolutionists. For one evolutionist may see the fossil record and ignore devolution and only see evolution. Another evolutionist may see a combination of devolution and evolution, and yet another evolutionist may say we don't know how to understand the fossil record because we don't have enough information about the multiple possible devolution and evolution events within biological history. 

The above three possible outcomes are all viable evolutionist readings of the same fossil record, and yet evolutionism is supposed to be nearly a proven fact of science, when in fact evolutionism is only a (false) theory with multiple possible outcomes and multiple possible understandings of the same evidence in the fossil record.

Exposing Some Major Contradictions in Evangelical Young Earth Creationist Thought.

The History of Creationist Thought

Dr. Todd Wood discusses some of the history of creationist thought as understood by some of the church fathers and some reformation theologians such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. Dr. Wood begins the discussion by proposing a historical understanding of the Genesis creation narrative by showing -

1) NT texts that speak of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood as historical events.

2) Church fathers that speak of the age of the universe as known through a literal, historical reading of the Genesis 5-11 genealogies.

3) The Reformation theologians also concur with the young age of the universe.

Dr Wood has established a principle of universally accepted understanding of the young universe based upon divine revelation. But then Dr Wood discusses some aspects of the Galileo case with the moving Earth theory and claims the motion of the Earth was proven in the 19th century (T29:10ff). Dr Wood also states the scriptures teach the motionless Earth where he quotes from the OT texts (1 Chron 16:30, Ps 104:5) which teach the Earth does not move -

He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.

Then Dr Wood discusses some more aspects of the Galileo case and claims the Earth's motion was proven in the 19th century (T37:10).

What then is the major contradiction in the Evangelical young Earth movement as presented by Dr Wood? The young Earth movement claims -

1)  Genesis teaches a historical creation event and the age of the universe may be derived from the Genesis 5-11 genealogies. The historicity of the Genesis texts is required as a realist approach to OT texts which serve as a realist understanding of the NT texts that speak of Christ's passion, and resurrection. The realist approach is used to show the evangelical faith is realist and not based upon a fictional, or symbolic, or mythical biblical account of creation.

In short, the young Earth evangelical creationists assume a realist, historical based reading of the Genesis creation and Genesis 5-11 genealogies.

2) Other parts of the Old Testament are assumed to be unreliable which speak of the motionless Earth, such as the Psalms, Joshua, and 1 Chronicles. Such texts are treated according to another hermeneutical method which assumes Dr Woods explanation of science's proof for the motion of the Earth.

In short, the young Earth evangelical creationists do not assume a realist, historical based reading of other passages of the Old Testament that are in fact historical books of the Bible, such as Joshua and 1 Chronicles.

Another contradiction associated with the above approach is to -

1) Assume science cannot prove an old Earth, and the Bible teaches a young Earth. 

2) Assume science can prove a moving Earth, and the Bible teaches a stationary Earth. 

1) and 2) have contradictory assumptions concerning the power of science. 1) assumes science models cannot prove an old Earth and 2) assumes science models can prove a moving Earth.

And another contradiction associated with the above approach is to -

1) Appeal to a long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts to teach a young Earth.

2) Ignore the same long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts to teach a moving Earth.

1) and 2) have contradictory assumptions concerning the veracity of the long-held history of the church's understanding of biblical texts.

The major contradictions within the Evangelical, young Earth creation movement can only be removed if they hold to a stationary Earth. Will they embrace the OT teaching on the stationary Earth or not?

The above post is not made to mock the young Earth creationist approach to the biblical text, but only to highlight one inconsistency with the Evangelical approach. The young Earth creationist movement has much to say that is worth considering under the ambit of Noah's universal flood and the age of the universe. But the above problems can only be removed if the movement embraces a motionless Earth as part of their platform.

An Argument for the Anti-Christian Nature of Evolutionary Theory.

Evolution teaches the ongoing progress of the universe, including biological improvement. The theory includes the notion of an ever-improving humanity from the primary humanoids which evolved from the population of apes. In short, evolution implies the high point in human history is always yet to come, when humanity is fully evolved to be everything evolution causes man to be. Evolution then must avoid the perfection of humanity in the past and look forward to an ever greater fulfilment of humanity.

By evolution promoting an ever greater humanity, evolution must deny the perfect humanity of Christ as God the Son, the Word made flesh, who divinised humanity. In denying the divine perfection of humanity caused by Christ, evolution must ignore Christ's divine work and promote another materialistic divine work, of the materialist god of pantheism. Evolution then must ignore the real work of the real God and promote a false work of the false, pantheistic god of evolutionism.

By promoting a false version of humanity, evolution must oppose the work of Christ and therefore must oppose Christ as the high point of humanity. Evolution is then an anti-Christian theory promoted by those who either knowingly, or unknowingly oppose Christ's divine work, with a false, pantheistic work. In short, evolution replaces the Christian divinity who cause a divinised humanity with a pantheistic, materialist divinity which causes a materialist humanity.

The Problem of Atheism's Perpetual Application of the Principle of Something from Nothing.

Being is the actualisation of all acts.
God is being and the universal cause of being.
God is then the prime actualiser of all acts to be of creatures.
Atheism denies the existence of God and thereby denies the existence of the prime being, which is the universal cause of being.
Or in other words, atheism denies the universal actualiser of all acts to be of creatures.
Creatures which have being, have the act to be.
Yet consequent to atheism's denial of God as the prime actualiser of a creature's being, the cause of a creature's being is either -

1) The creature itself causes the creature's own being - But the creature cannot cause the creature's own being. For the creature would already have the act to be, to then cause it's own being. For a creature to cause its own being is a series of circular causes which assumes being in the creature which is then caused by the creature. As a circular series of causes is not possible, a creature cannot cause it's own being.

2) The creature has its own being caused by nothing, as from non-being - yet nothing cannot be a cause of anything. For non-being is a negation of an act, and a negation of an act is not a cause. For a cause is an act that presupposes the act to be of the cause, which in turns acts to produce the act to be in the effect. A negation of being is never a cause, but only ever a negation of a cause.

If the atheist proposes to account for the existence of creatures as being from nothing, the ongoing existence of creatures is an ongoing act of something from nothing. For the act to be is never accounted for, as from the creature, but must be accounted for, as from another cause. The act to be of the creature is an ongoing act, which has an ongoing cause to produce the effect of the act to be within the creature. The atheist is then forced to account for the ongoing existence of creatures from one moment to the next as caused by nothing.

Consequent to the creatures caused by nothing, science as a measure of creatures must also acknowledge the principle of something from nothing. For science is based upon ontology (the science of being) which according to atheism is accounted for as from nothing. Science theory must then acknowledge everything that exists is as from nothing. Therefore causes are nothing, and therefore all scientific theory should include the notion that at any time and at any place, something may be caused by nothing. Of course, once the principle of something from nothing as required by atheism, is embraced by science, all scientific theory is reduced to a mindless, irrational superstition.

Conclusion - Atheism requires the principle of something from nothing to account for the act to be of creatures. If atheists embrace the principle of something from nothing, they should also embrace the same principle in all the sciences. But to embrace the principle of something from nothing in the sciences infers the sciences are reduced to an irrational superstition. Atheism then has a tendency towards reducing all scientiffic knowledge down to a mindless superstition.

The Impossibility of Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis teaches biological life came from non-living bodies. But the non-living is that which is moved by hetero-motive action, whereby motion occurs from outside the substance towards an end outside the substance. For example, a rock is moved down the hill via a push from a stick. The sticks push on the rock is outside the rock and the final end of the motion of the rock is outside the rock.

The living is that which is moved according to automotive action, whereby the act of motion is intrinsic to the moved body and the term of the act is also intrinsic to the body. For example, a man eats and is nourished. The action of eating is from within the man and the act of nourishment is an end within the man.

Abiogenesis teaches biological life came from non-living substances. Yet non-living substances always act in a manner that is contrary to living substances. For biological life to come from non-living substances requires an effect from the non-living that is contrary to the causes of the non-living. Yet as effects are always in accord with causes, the living substances are never caused by the non-living. Therefore the theory of abiogenesis is both impossible false.