Turning Nothing into Something
Does Evolution Explain Life and the Universe?
“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for and admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything” C.K. Chesterton, “Thomas Aquinas : The Dumb Ox.
Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something and nobody can get an inch closer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. However, this is exactly what many atheists attempt to do. They think they have explained existence by explaining evolution. However, they have a number of large problems. (1) They must first prove that Darwinian evolution is a science. If they believe that science is made up of knowledge, which comes from following what is known as the scientific method, the study of deep time evolution might be something other than science. (2) Let’s assume they prove that evolution is a science. Then they must prove one theory of evolution. That is, they must prove that evolution is not directed from outside of nature, which is impossible. (3) Then after proving 1 and 2, they must show how evolution of any kind proves that there is no God. What if the deity just created everything and just threw dice and left the creation to work out its own evolution? If this were the case, there would be no trace of design in the universe or evident for God. This would be the God of the deist, but surely would not rule out the existence of a God.
In actuality, after all of this work, all unbelievers would have done is prove that they have the ability to come with a story of how something changed into something else. They still have not proven that God does not exist or how something came from nothing. In fact, all they would have proven is that they have shown how someone could imagine how something could turn into something else. Of course, the same imagination could come up with what would seem a reasonable explanation of how a horse could become a unicorn or how pink flamingos could become pink elephants, given the magical ingredient of enough time and the human imagination.
Though their explanation does not prove evolution or that God does not existence, they have demonstrated the power of the human mind and imagination, and the gullibility of the masses. Humans have the ability to create whole systems of thought, which to some degree actually shape reality for them who believe them. These systems of thought are called myths by some. In a vulgar sense, myths are thought of as stories that are not true. However, in a broader sense, they are stories on which cultures are built and reflect the values of people. Culture is first; then comes the myths that support it. I believe a case could be made for Darwinian evolution to be a myth or a story, which came out of a pantheistic and a materialist culture that began to emerge around the Renaissance and continued to gain strength up to time of the Enlightenment. The myth was strengthened by a capitalistic system, which preached the survival of the fittest and a new atheism that was strengthened by the decline of Christian morality and a decorative corrupt church. The proof of this can be seen by the overwhelming quick acceptance of Darwinism without one shred of scientific evidence. It seems, to be somewhat obvious that the culture of the 19th century prepared people for the new evolution myth of creation.
However, remember that the explanation is not the data or the evidence. Spinning an explanation may prove that one is intelligent and that one may have kissed the Blarney Stone, but it proves nothing else without hard cool facts. This is true of believers and unbelievers, both are experts at stretching the facts.
The creation tale and explanation of Darwinian evolution can never be proven by science, using the scientific method. Moreover, after all that work of trying to prove it, one is still not any closer to explaining how something came from nothing and all one has for his effort is a hypothetical explanation how something changes into something else. On top of that, one has to deal with respected scientists like Henry Gee, who would say that much of one’s explanation of deep time evolution comes more from the imagination of men than true science.
Let me close by saying that my beef is not with science or even evolution, though I must admit that I personally do not believe it to be a science as physics is a science. My problem is with many atheists, who use science and especially the theories of evolution to attempt to prove that there is no God. Evolution is a “how” question and really has little to do with the question, “Is there a God?” I will grant that if evolution is true, it may tell us something about God, but what it would tell us is that He is great beyond our imagination, and I do not see how this would help the atheistic cause. If Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, the atheist still finds himself in deep water. For it would take more faith (something they hate) to believe that this complex system of nature came about by sheer luck than to believe it was directed by God.
 By evolution in this article I mean the system, which teaches that all life came from one common ancestor in deep time and can be explained by natural selection and mutations, apart from any direction from outside of nature by a deity.
 Some philosophers of science have argued that evolutionary explanations of past events are not scientific because we cannot test them in the way laboratory scientists test their hypotheses. This challenge raises genuine questions about the scientific method. Evolutionists respond that to apply the methodology of physics to any historical science is to miss the point that an empirical study of such questions must adopt different standards. The situation is complicated by the fact that some biologists support the attack on evolutionism, not because they endorse creationism, but because they feel that evolutionary relationship cannot be studied scientifically. Peter K. Bowler Evolution-The History of an Idea Page 369
 There has are a number of different theories of evolution. The debate on evolution and its mechanism has raged in the scientific community since Charles Darwin.
 Henry Gee Deep Time Cladistics, the Revolution in Evolution.
 I have been asked if I believe in evolution. My answer is I believe in change that can be proven by the scientific method, which is barnyard evolution, which can be observed by all men and evolution, which is demonstrated in a laboratory. I do not believe in deep time evolution for it unknowable and is based on speculation, an often a over active imagination.
 The study of Darwinian evolution could fall under the discipline of history. However, even here there is a huge problem, for much of data is prehistoric. That means before history was recorded, which means it would have to be based on reading into the facts your imaginational opinion biased on your preconditioning, If you had any facts, the meaning of the facts would have to come from some other source than one’s imagination even to be called history much less science. Evolution might make a fine story, but it would not qualify as history any more than the movie “The Planet of Apes.” The study of barnyard evolution which can be observed, gets much closer to science than Darwinism or prehistoric evolution, because the scientific method can be applied to what is going on in the barnyard or the laboratory. However, laboratory study in evolution includes a consciousness and intelligence manipulating nature, which many raise a question of their true reflection of the natural process. This kind of science proves nothing of what happens in nature under its own accord. What it proves is the intelligence can manipulate nature to small degrees. If intelligence can manipulate nature to small a degree, what could super-intelligence, i.e., God, do?