There are barriers in the search for Objective Truth- many deliberate, some simply the result of circumstances. Scientific literature is, well written for scientists. Academics write mostly to impress others in academia. It is often poorly written and ridiculously opaque for the general public. Even where the text is readable, it tends to be one-sided because the authors need to present one point and cannot expand to related disciplines. So in presenting their thesis they may confuse fact and fiction, knowledge and belief, and not acknowledge, or properly state, opposing facts or views. I’m not saying it is deliberate, but it might cost them grant money.
One way around this is to write a book and you can say it goes all the way back to Darwin, when he published his book “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection.” Darwin proposed a comprehensive interpretation of many diverse lines of evidence. He also argued for the superior explanatory power of his theory and its two key propositions: the creative power of natural selection and the descent of all life from a common ancestor. He also argued against the explanatory adequacy of rival interpretations of the evidence and refuted arguments for them. This was the first of many books that have accomplished the same concept. It has made many scientists and pseudo-scientists rich and famous.
There are other reasons that books are used to advance paradigm-shifting ideas. New scientific theories often synthesize a broad range of evidence from many related disciplines or sub-disciplines of science. As such, they are often inherently interdisciplinary in scope. Modern scientific journals, typically focused as they are on topics within a narrowly defined sub-discipline, rarely permit the kind of comprehensive review and assessment of evidence that the advancement of a new interpretive framework requires.
More insidious, are the barriers deliberately constructed by those who fashion themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. They have fired, demoted, ostracized, and attacked dozens, perhaps hundreds, of scientists who dare to point out the overwhelming evidence that contradicts the prevailing concepts, both in physics and in life itself. Others will say and have said to me: “whine about how the media and the courts are destroying the ability to present that concept, get in line. Our media and government are controlled by people that have their own agenda and many many things are excluded.” Nobody is ‘whining’ however they are diligently working to get the information out so that people can, if they so desire with an open mind, understand the information they are being denied. They cannot make an intelligent decision about Objective Truth with only part of the information available.
“It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research, ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.” (Biochemist and noted author Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 342)
We, have a choice between wonder and acceptance, between hope and despair, between intellectual freedom and conformity. Many individuals are persuaded to base their choice on a myth. The myth that science has somehow displaced religion, that science has somehow triumphed over religion, that science has somehow made religion obsolete. Contrary to what you may have only had the opportunity to read and contrary to what you may insist upon believing, science and religion are converging on the wonder of a marvelous universe, and both scientists and religious believers are in awe of its magnificent design.
The riddle of existence is as old as the human race. Why does the universe exist? Is what we see and detect all there is, or is there some type of greater reality, of greater truth? Why do we exist? Can we believe we were put here for a purpose, and if so, what is it? How you live your life perhaps depends upon your answers to those questions. Some individuals devote their lives to a calling they believe comes from God; others mock believers and follow no moral code. Still others invent their own moral code but doubt divine intervention or design.
We are each entitled to our own views, perceptions, our own reality (no matter how far from real it might be). I respect Atheists and Agnostics. I do not share their point of view. I am not troubled by Atheists, I can see how a person could conclude that there is no God, I certainly did for some 20 years of my life. I am not troubled by Agnostics, I can see how a person could conclude that one does not know, and perhaps will never know, whether God exists. I do reject the misuse of science in the debate. In my view, science and mathematics strongly support belief in God. The proposition by a small but vocal minority of Atheists, that science somehow reveals the folly of religion, is wholly false.
Many Atheists and even some theologians will suggest I am arguing “from ignorance.” They will suggest that most of the incredible scientific evidence for the existence of God is but “gaps” in our present knowledge.
Failure of science or God?
Just because we do not currently know how something could have been created from nothing doesn’t mean “God did it”; just because we don’t currently know how life formed doesn’t mean “God did it,” and so on ad nauseam. They insist I have fallen into a “God-of-the-gaps” fallacy.
I am insulted by that assertion. I will place, and have done so a number of times, my background, knowledge and intelligence against anyone. It is a tricky argument for the Atheists to use, because it assumes it is itself correct. It assumes that science will ultimately provide a complete non-theistic explanation for all things. It assumes belief in a “science-of-the-gaps.” Only one can be true for you and me.
Some of the greatest current luminaries of the evolution movement, Richard Lewontin and Richard Dawkins claim the design in life is illusory. They claim that life looks designed, but was not designed by an actual intelligent or purposive agent. That leaves only accident as a reason for life becoming life from inanimate materials.
Before we go further, we ought to distinguish five questions that are often confused.
- First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not. That is an objective truth.
- Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists. And that also is an objective truth)
- Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. This is subjective.
- Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the lottery ticket I bought may win this week’s Lotto, but there is a good reason for thinking that is very improbable. That is an objective truth.
- Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
We know that only intelligence produces information, and we have now found information in the universe and in life. Life has been replaced by knowledge that all living creatures run off the same operating system and are built using a tremendous amount of information. This reasoning is focused and direct. It is a positive argument, based on finding in nature the type of information and complexity that, in all human experience, come only from intelligence. To me, design is the only plausible explanation for the creation of the functional nanotechnology in all cells, and the stupendous creation of human beings and the human brain. You can choose to believe in “cumulative selection,” but I find that an illogical fairy tale that collapses upon even cursory examination.
I believe I have logically laid out the premise that I will point out objective truth in the remaining articles. It was necessary to lay in these four articles the foundation of the ideas and the concepts that will follow. Some of these are:
- A fundamental premise of science is that everything that comes into existence had to have a causal event. What we know points directly to the existence of a supreme Creator outside of space and time to a first cause. It does not conclusively prove that God exists but it certainly suggests that it is a viable probability. As an objective truth one has to decide to believe in this first cause or to personally decide what other alternative belief such as an infinite multi-verse which just exists for no reason and that it is more plausible.
- We know our universe is incredibly fine-tuned for life as we know it, all other possible planetary bodies have any one of a number of problems that would, if life was possible, cause ‘life’ to be incredibly different than what we know it to be. The alternative would believe and infinite multi-verse, and that the laws and constants of physics can have and might possibly in the future change.
- All life is incredibly complex. There is not even a “mildly plausible” theory for the origin of life by undirected, natural means. There also, is no expectation of any new laws of chemistry or physics to explain the origin of life. There is information stored in the same form and manner in the structure of all life on this earth and this good definitely point to the existence of a God. There is no Atheist explanation for the origin of life, there just is not any.
- We know the technology of life is far more advanced in many ways than any human programming and knowledge. The Atheist belief that new functional nanotechnology – “life” – arises from random combinations of atoms, is irrational. As an objective truth, this would point to the existence of God.
- We know that there are complete unanswered puzzles in the emergence of brand-new species. The neo-Darwinists will speak rapturously of the power of natural selection, but we all know that “cumulative selection” is a fairytale, and the fossil record and other facts of science do not agree with the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
- We know that the earth is special but how special still hasn’t been determined.
- Incredibly complex mathematical concepts and ideas underlie all of physics and may be the foundation of existence. Objectively, the truth of these known facts point to God.
First, we will deal with the science of some things, then the mathematical probability and then how they relate to each other on a philosophical basis. It will be objective and you can decide if you wish to believe the truth or not, even though it is true for everyone else.