Was the Universe Created out of Nothing?

 The most famous scientist in our lifetime, Stephen Hawking, was an atheist and believed that the universe created itself, out of nothing.  Now, as a non-scientist, my first question to Dr. Hawking would be, is this a scientific question or a philosophical question?  We'll never know since Dr. Hawking died a few years ago.  Not to worry, a few other scientists shared his view, so I'll ask again, is this a scientific question or a philosophical question? Here is an article discussing this.  The question here, is obviously not a scientific question but a philosophical one.  You can't prove scientifically that the universe came into existence from nothing.  Certainly logic and philosophy would argue the opposite.  In our human experience and empirical evidence there is nothing that we can point to that came into existence from nothing.  Out of nothing, nothing comes. This was spoken by the leading character of Shakespeare's King Lear.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument to support the thesis that nothing comes out of nothing. Philosopher, William Lane Craig, is the most prominent defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  The argument is in the form of a syllogism:  (1) Everything the begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, (3) therefore it has a cause.  Craig published a book on this subject in 1979. A reprint of this book is still available on Amazon.com.  Click here.  Today, scientists agree that the universe had a beginning, dating to 14 Billion years ago (the Big Bang Theory).  It follows, therefore, that this fits the Kalam Argument.  As an aside, I would add that I have heard Dr. Craig speak many times and have followed his career and can say that he is perhaps one of the best philosophers of our day.  Click here for a short four-minute video explaining the Kalam argument in detail.

Up until the early 20th Century, science believed that the universe had always existed, then a man named Albert Einstein discovered that the universe had a beginning with his General Theory of Relativity.  Einstein was in disbelief about this, but his calculations led to a beginning.  To fit in with the scientific belief of the day of no beginning, Einstein thought that he had erred, so he came up with his "Cosmological Constant" equation.  Then when Edwin Hubble discovered what became known as "the red shift;" this proved that the Cosmological Constant equation was not a good explanation.  Hubble's 1929 brilliant observation was that the red shift of galaxies was directly proportional to the distance of the galaxies from earth.  That meant that things farther away from earth were moving away faster.  In other words, the universe must be expanding.  Einstein agreed and said that this was his biggest mistake.  The universe did have a beginning. See the article here.   For those of us who are religious  believers, this was an affirmation of what the Bible has taught from the beginning.  The very first words of the Bible:  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1).

How do we know what we know?  Charles Darwin, the god of evolution in his seminal book, On the Origin of Species, explained that scientists use a method of reasoning that points to "inferences to the best explanation for causes that we know."  For example, if we encounter ash at the foot of a mountain, we can infer that a volcano produced this because we know that a volcano produces such ash.  For a terrific and thorough explanation of this, see this short video by Dr. Stephen Meyer, the most prolific Intelligent Design proponent today.  Click here to see the video; it is worth watching.

For an additional fine intellectual challenge to Hawking's claim of the universe coming from nothing see this short video by Fr. Robert Barron made about 13 years ago before he was appointed a bishop.  Barron is perhaps the best Catholic intellectual cleric in the United States.  With a sharp mind and a powerful apologetic analytic defense.  Check it out:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo&t=8s

Punctuated Equilibrium Does What?

 Darwinian evolutionists have done many acrobatic hoops and jumps to try to prove that evolution is true.  One such attempt is Punctuated Equilibrium, as proposed by two American scientists, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early 1970s.  Punctuated Equilibrium is defined as: "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change."

Now, a simple question:  Does this definition not argue against Darwinian evolution?  According to Darwinian evolution "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics."  So, I'm confused; is evolution change over time or a sudden explosion? According to proponents of Punctuated Equilibrium it's not change over time but a sudden happening.  If you Google for the proof of Punctuated Equilibrium you will see that they say that scientists have found proof of it in the genetic sequence.  But, sorry, I don't get it. Where is the beef?  Show me the transitional forms.  I've yet to see any of them.  Click here for a short video of an explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium.  The skeptic may say, you don't know what you're talking about; you're not a scientist.  Well, yes, I'm not, but show me the transitional forms.  I don't see them. Scientific mumbo jumbo will not do.  Don't tell me you see it in the genetic code; show me the transitional forms.

Supporters of Punctuated Equilibrium may have the Cambrian Explosion in mind.  It is true that the fossils in the Cambrian appeared fully formed; no transitional forms, but how does this lead you to Punctuated Equilibrium?  Here is a fine article by Casey Luskin explaining this.  Click here to read it.

The Problem With Darwinian Evolution

 You have to have faith to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Lots of faith.  What is their evidence for change over time?  Does the Fossil Record back them up?  Does science back them up? Do they allow other points of view?  Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics back their position of gain of function over time?

I am not a scientist.  I have been interested in this subject since reading the classic Darwin work, Origin of Species in my second year of college.  I was impressed by Darwin's work but I kept scratching my head as to how he can jump to the conclusions he did.  How did a minuscule increase or decrease in the Finch beak indicate a change in transitional animal forms?  How did the Fossil Record lead him to believe in change over time when he could not find such a record?  Since those early years I've read extensively on this subject.  I have yet to see proof that Darwinian evolution is true.  I agree that Darwin was a brilliant scientist.  Darwin was up front about his scientific views. He stated that he did not have proof of his theory; he believed that the Fossil Record would eventually prove him right.  163 years later, the Fossil Record is worse than at his time.  Darwin stated in the Origin of Species:  

“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 no such case.”

To this day no transitional forms have been found.  His theory has broken down.  The Fossil Record as shown in the Cambrian explosion proves him wrong.  For years I had serious doubts about Darwinian Evolution, then one day I heard an interview with the author of Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson.  Johnson verified every doubt I had.  Here is a short video of Johnson on the problem with Darwinian evolution.  Phillip Johnson died a few years ago.

Fossil Record:  The Cambrian Explosion shows all the animal forms appeared fully formed.  So, they have a hell of a time trying to use the Cambrian Explosion to prove their point.  Click here for a short video clip of Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian Explosion.  So, what do they use?  Lots of fancy double talk and no scientific proof, in my view. Cell biologist Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, list 12 Darwinian icons that Darwinists use to "prove" evolution, such as The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryo's, Archaeopteryx, and Peppered Moths, all have proven to be either fakes or have been debunked.   I have a strong suspicion that what drives them is their fervent atheism, such as the well known British Darwinist, Richard Hawkins, a proud atheist.  In his popular book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins states:  "Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist." Don't know if this is true but I suspect that it has a lot to do with it.  Dawkins says that design is an illusion basically; it looks like design but it's not.  So, where is the beef?  He presents no evidence for his position; just an arbitrary assertion.  You just have to have faith in Dawkins.

Does science back up Darwinism?  I have yet to see it.  Again, you must have faith. 

Do they allow different points of view?  Just try to speak at any college about Intelligent Design or say anything that challenges Darwinian evolution and see what happens.  Or, try to teach Intelligent Design; you will be fired on the spot, as was Washington state High School teacher Roger DeHart.  DeHart was not trying to reach Intelligent Design, he just wanted his students to look at both sides of the issue. So what are they afraid of? The truth perhaps?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Does the second law support Darwinian evolution?  No, it's the opposite.  According to this law, energy goes from order to disorder, or what is called entropy, not the other way around like the Darwinist believe.  Just look at a human being.  What happens over time? Are you in a better physical shape at 90 years old as you were at 18?

Biologist Michael Behe, in his classic work, Darwin's Black Box, talks about "irreducible complexity." Unless all the parts are there, the mouse trap does not work.  This is totally the opposite of what Darwin proposes.  So, I'm still waiting for the evidence of Darwinian evolution.  James Perloff, in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, equates Darwinian evolution as having a 747 aircraft being assembled by a tornado in a junkyard.  

Darwinism and the Problem With the Fossil Record

I'm a Darwin skeptic, and it has nothing to do with religion, the Bible or creationism.  I say this because the Darwinists do not take too kindly to anyone who does not buy Darwinian evolution as being without question.  My skepticism is due to the fact that the theory has not been proven, despite what you hear from Darwinists.  My main point is that the fossil record does not have any proof of any transitional forms, required by Darwin's theory.  On social media, you should see the responses to any dissent; it is vicious.  Ad hominem attacks are the order of the day.  The Darwinist immediately go to their first strategy when answering a Darwin skeptic: you're a creationist or a Bible thumper.  This is a way of dismissing you without answering your argument.

I admire Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.   I read his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species;" twice.  First as a young college student and a second time over 30 years later.  Darwin was a great scientist.  He stated his theory and made it falsifiable.  According to Wikipedia falsifiability is: "refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question."  Darwin specifically hung his theory on the fossil record.  He made this statement in The Origin of Species:  “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 no such case.”  Darwin believed that the fossil record eventually would prove his theory, once it was complete.  One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is no better than in 1859 when the Origin of Species was published.  Click here for a fine article by Casey Luskin on this problem.

Darwinists will tell you that there are transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx, wales and others.  None of these have any conclusive proof that such is the case. Here is another article in a science journal that denies that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.   The data, on the contrary, lacks conclusive evidence of any transitional forms.  The Cambrian Explosion is one of the best case against transitional forms.  All the fossils appeared suddenly and complete species.  Most scientists admit that they have a problem with the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinist where the conclusive evidence is and they will circle the wagons.  There is no conclusive evidence, period.

What is a "Creationist"?

Whenever a Darwinists, or any proponent of Darwinian evolution encounters a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID) they will quickly brand them as a "creationist."  They do not define what they mean by "creationist."  Click here for a detailed definition of what is referred to as "creationism." This is usually used as a way to dismiss the ID proponent as being a religious nut.   There are two big reasons why this is false:

1.  Darwinist will call an ID proponent a "creationist," meaning they are Bible thumpers that can be dismissed out of hand.  After all, the Bible is not science, so an ID person must be an anti-science person.  False.  First of all the Bible does not say that the earth was created in six literal days.  Those who believe in a literal interpretation of this are plainly mistaken.  The Bible says that one day is like a thousand days, for instance.  See 2 Peter 3:8 which states:  "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."  I've read over 30 books by ID proponents.  Not one has ever stated that he/she believes in creationism.  There are Christians who believe in creationism, meaning the the earth was created in six literal days, but I've never heard of one ID proponent claiming to be a creationist.  I'm not a creationist.  I believe that God created the universe but I also believe that science has shown the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billions years old.  Even if you are a "creationist" how does that negate the evidence of ID?  If you brain surgeon is a creationist will this disqualify him from doing brain surgery?  When you disagree you must present evidence to nullify the other's evidence, not ad hominem attacks.

2. When Darwinist call an ID proponent a "creationist," they falsely assume this.  They believe that since you're not a Darwinist you must be a "creationist.  Again, this is a false charge not based on any knowledge of the accused person.

The Darwinist handle any opposition with ad hominem attacks; they try to slime you.  They do not present opposing evidence, they just call you names such as "creationist," anti-science and other hateful epithets.  A few years ago I attended a debate at Biola University in La Mirada, California where a Christian debated an atheist, William Lane Craig was the Christian and Peter Singer of Princeton University, the atheist.  Darwinist will never allow an ID person to step foot in a college campus.

If you're a science teacher, try mentioning any evidence against the Darwinian theory and see what happens.  You will be escorted out of the school and fired on the spot.  Is this academic freedom?  This is pure academic tyranny.  A few years ago a movie was released dealing with this issue and details what happened to scientists who dared say anything other than tow the Darwinian line.  Watch a trailer of this film here.  

My Way or the Highway: Why Opponents of ID Will Not Let Them Speak

On today's Michael Medved radio show he had a person on who represents the Freedom from Religion Foundation; an organization that  is against religion in the public square and in education.  They're suing a professor at Ball State University who dared to disagree with Darwin in one of his physics classes.  Now the very first question is why sue someone in court who disagrees with you on a scientific point?  Why not present the evidence against that view?  Perhaps they don't have any.  Why are Darwinist so threatened by Intelligent Design (ID)?  I believe they're petrified that their faith in Darwin is being destroyed. What happened to academic freedom?  The Freedom From Religion representative kept saying that ID has been debunked.  What?  Have you seen the list of prominent scientists who disagree with Darwin?  Click here to see it.  This is academic tyranny run amok.

The representative of this organization against religion in the public square kept calling Intelligent Design advocates, "creationists."  Now they never define what they mean by "creationist."  They use this as a epithet against anyone who disagrees with them.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  ID advocates make no such claim to be "creationists."  A creationist is one who believes that the earth was created about six thousand years ago.  This is based on a mis-reading of the Bible.  The Bible makes no such claim that the each was created in six thousand years.  Opponents of ID always refer to us as "creationists."  This is an outright lie but it is their favorite method of answering why they oppose ID.  Memo to Darwinists:  Ad hominem attacks does not offer any evidence against ID.

Believe or be Banned: The Intolerance of the Darwinists

Darwinian evolutionists have a stranglehold the science of evolution.  A skeptic of Darwinian evolution cannot exist in any public institution of higher learning, High School and beyond.  If a teacher ever says anything close to casting any doubt on Darwinian evolution he/she will be expelled forthwith.  The fine documentary film,  Expelled, documented this well.

Now, I thought that science meant to follow the evidence wherever it leads.  Apparently not, when it comes to anyone challenging evolution.  Why is the science establishment so afraid of anyone who doubts or wants to look into anything other than the party line?  Could it be that they're not so sure, or better yet, they don't have the evidence?

I've been a Darwin skeptic since my first Anthropology class in college.  After reading Darwin's classic  The Origin of Species,  I suspected then that Darwin had jumped the sharks after he claimed that the beak change in Finches could be a sign of one species turning into another.  Nothing of the kind has ever happened.  I believed then and I still believe now that Darwin was a great scientist.  I believe that The Origin of Species deserves to be an all time classic;  it is.  Darwin, was an honest scientist.  He clearly stated that if what he proposed in this book did not turn out to be true, such as the fossil record, his theory would break down.  The fossil record is no better now than it was in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species.  Where are the transitional forms?  They have not come up with a single one yet; evolutionists  will circle the wagons and dazzle you with their vacuous scientific jargon.  I have a simple question:  Show me the transitional forms?

Darwinian evolution is more blind faith than science.  Their definition of science is all the evidence that "we" allow and if you present anything else you will be eliminated.  Back to the fossil record.  Ask any Darwinian about the Cambrian Explosion and see what he says.  The Cambrian Explosion is a devastating rebuttal to gradual incremental change.  All the fossils found there were all fully formed; no transitional forms; no gradual incremental change.  Click here to watch this YouTube video about the Cambrian Explosion.  I'm convinced that Darwinian evolution has been the biggest fraud committed on science in history. Darwinians are the Bernie Madoff of science.  A house built on sand.

Most Darwinists will tell you that most scientists support Darwinian evolution.  In fact this is not true.  Click here for a list of hundreds of top scientists who dissent from Darwin.  The Darwinists will answer with ad hominem attacks; they will call you every name in the book but cannot prove their theory.  One of their favorite ad hominem attack is to call you a "creationist" or a religious zealot.  No, show me the transitional forms.  If you cannot prove your theory, calling people names will not do it.