Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

Unmasking the Hijackers
of Science
Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2010

Outline
I. The Origin of Science in Creation

Founders of Modern Science
Bacon
Kepler Galileo
Newton

A. The Founders of Modern Science
Believed in a Creator
Johannes Kepler (1571 1630) Celestial Mechanics,‑
Physical Astronomy
Blaise Pascal (1623 1662) Hydrostatics‑
Robert Boyle (1627 1691) Chemistry,‑
Gas Dynamics
Nicolaus Steno (1638 1687) Stratigraphy‑
Isaac Newton (1642 1727) Calculus, Dynamics‑
Michael Faraday (1791 1867) Magnetic Theory‑
Charles Babbage (1792 1871) Computer Science‑

Louis Agassiz (1807 1873) Glacial Geology,‑
Ichthyology
James Simpson (1811 1870) Gynecology‑
Gregor Mendel (1822 1884) Genetics‑
Louis Pasteur (1822 1895) Bacteriology‑
Lord Kelvin (1824 1907) Energetics,‑
Thermodynamics
Joseph Lister (1827 1912) Antiseptic‑
Surgery
James Maxwell (1831 1879)‑
Electrodynamics
Statistical
Thermodynamics
William Ramsay (1852 1916) Isotopic‑

B. Belief in Creation was the
Basis of Modern Science
1. Francis Bacon [1620]
“The beginning is from God”
(Novum Organum 1.93, 91).
“God on the first day of creation
created light…” (1.70, 68).
Bacon spoke of “the Creator’s
own stamp upon creation…”
(1.124, 114).
"Only let the human race recover
that right over nature which
belongs to it by divine bequest
[in Gen. 1:28]…” (1:129, 119).

"The faith in the possibility
of science… is an unconscious
derivative from medieval
theology" (Science in the
Modern World, 13).
2. Alfred N. Whitehead:
Science Was Based in Christian Theism

"What is the source of the un-Greek
elements which...constitute the modernity
of modern philosophy? And...what is the
source of those un-Greek elements in the
modern theory of nature...? The answer
to the first question is: The Christian
revelation, and the answer to the second:
The Christian doctrine of creation" (Mind
1934, 448).
3. M. B. Foster: Science Based in Creation

4. Professor Langdon Gilkey:
““The religious idea of aThe religious idea of a
transcendent Creatortranscendent Creator
actuallyactually made possiblemade possible
rather than hinderedrather than hindered
the progress of thethe progress of the
scientific understandingscientific understanding
ofof thethe natural order.”natural order.”
Modern scienceModern science “was provided for Western“was provided for Western
culture byculture by the idea of creation”the idea of creation” ((Maker ofMaker of
Heaven and EarthHeaven and Earth, 110, 120)., 110, 120).

C. Principles Used by Early ScientistsC. Principles Used by Early Scientists
1. The Principle of Causality
Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes"
(Novum Organum 2.2, 121).
Hume: "I never asserted so absurd a proposition
as that anything might arise without a cause"
(Hume, Letters, 1:187).
Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle
that a thing cannot occur without a cause
which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

2. The Principle of Regularity2. The Principle of Regularity
Galileo (1546-1642):Galileo (1546-1642): God created regular and discoverableGod created regular and discoverable
laws by which the world operates. So,laws by which the world operates. So, “You simply“You simply
cannot change the experimental conclusions aboutcannot change the experimental conclusions about
natural phenomena and the heavens,natural phenomena and the heavens, as you can alter theas you can alter the
terms of a contract, raise the interest rate or change aterms of a contract, raise the interest rate or change a
business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17).business deal” (“Letter to Duchess,” 17).
In fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are notIn fact, “even all of the verses of Scripture are not
obligated toobligated to function as rigorously as every law of nature.function as rigorously as every law of nature.
AndAnd it is no less excellent to discover the works of God init is no less excellent to discover the works of God in
naturenature than in the sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter tothan in the sayings of Holy Scripture” (“Letter to
Duchess,” 8).Duchess,” 8).
Nature has “Nature has “fixed lawsfixed laws” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122),” (Bacon, NO, 2.2, 122),
““uniform”uniform” (Hume,(Hume, EnquiryEnquiry, X),, X), “steady”“steady” (Hutton,(Hutton, TheoryTheory
of the Earth,of the Earth,19),19), “constant,”“constant,” “undeviating”“undeviating” (Lyell,(Lyell,
Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 143, 89), and even, 143, 89), and even “immutable”“immutable”
(Laplace,(Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 177)., 177).

3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)
Laplace:Laplace: ““AnalogyAnalogy is based upon the probability thatis based upon the probability that
similar things have causes of the same kindsimilar things have causes of the same kind and produceand produce
the same effects." And "thisthe same effects." And "this probability increases as theprobability increases as the
similitude becomes more perfect"similitude becomes more perfect" (Laplace,(Laplace, Prob.Prob., 180)., 180).
Thus,Thus, scientific views about the pastscientific views about the past are derived withare derived with
"the aid of proofs drawn from these"the aid of proofs drawn from these analogiesanalogies [with the[with the
present]"present]" (ibid., 100).(ibid., 100).
DarwinDarwin: If artificial selection can produce small changes in: If artificial selection can produce small changes in
a short time, thena short time, then likewise (analogously)likewise (analogously) naturalnatural
selection can produce large changes over a long periodselection can produce large changes over a long period
of time (Darwin,of time (Darwin, OriginOrigin, Chaps. 1-2)., Chaps. 1-2).

3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)3. The Principle of Analogy (Uniformity)
General Principle:General Principle: “The“The
present is the key to the past.”present is the key to the past.”
Application to Science:Application to Science:
“Causes similar in kind and“Causes similar in kind and
energy to those now acting,energy to those now acting,
have produced the formerhave produced the former
changes of the earth’schanges of the earth’s
surface…” (seesurface…” (see Principles of Geology, 1Principles of Geology, 1stst
ed.ed.
1830; 111830; 11thth
ed. 1878, p. 88).ed. 1878, p. 88).
Charles Lyell (1797-1875)

4. Principle of Knowability:4. Principle of Knowability: Nature and its
Cause [God] can be Known
Bacon: “The Creator’s own stamp [is] upon creation…”
(N.O., 1.124, 114). Nature is “the book of God’s
works…a kind of second Scripture” (N.O., 282) in which
we discover “the ideas of the divine” (ibid., 114).
Galileo: “The glory and greatness of God are marvelously
discovered in all his works, and…things about God are
to be read in the open book of the sky” (Galileo,
Duchess, 20).
Kepler: “God who founded everything in the world…has
endowed man with a mind which can comprehend these
norms” (cited by Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific
Thought, 84).

a. Education Based on Creationa. Education Based on Creation
McGuffy’s Reader (c.
1830-1930): “God is the
Creator, and His
creation enables us to
understand Him. In
proportion as we
investigate the secrets of
the natural world, we are
able to understand the
nature of God.”

“We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that
all men are created
equal, that they are
endowed by their
Creator with certain
unalienable Rights,
that among these are
Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.”
1776: Declaration of Independence
b. Government Based on Creation
““Nature’s Laws”Nature’s Laws”
fromfrom
““Nature’s God”Nature’s God”

5. There are Two Kinds of Causes
Primary Cause—deals with origin of World, named a
“Creator” or “Mind” (Hutton, TE, 551), “supreme
intelligence” (ibid., 223), or “Author of Nature” (Lyell, PG, 4).
Bacon speaks of “The efficient and… remote causes… [i.e.,
primary cause]” (Novum Organum [1620] No. 2.2,121) and
even that “the beginning is from God” (1.93, 91).
Secondary Cause—deals with the operation of the world.
Lyell wrote: “The present mountains and valleys of the earth
are due to secondary causes…” (PG, 58). These are causes
that “belong to the present order of nature” (ibid., 76). He

6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists6. Two Kinds of Science for Early Scientists
Cosmogony CosmologyCosmogony Cosmology
Biogeny BiologyBiogeny Biology
Anthropogeny AnthropologyAnthropogeny Anthropology
Primary Cause Secondary CausesPrimary Cause Secondary Causes
Origin Science Operation ScienceOrigin Science Operation Science

7. The Universe Needs an Intelligent Cause

"May God make it come to pass that my
delightful speculation have…the effect which I
strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the
belief in the creation of the world be fortified
through this external support, that thought of the
creator be recognized in its nature, and that his
inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more
brightly” (cited by Gerard Holton, Thematic Origins
of Scientific Thought [1973], 84).
Universe Needs Intelligent Cause
Johannes Kepler (1571 1630)‑ :

“It is not to be conceived
that mere mechanical
causes could give birth to
so many regular motions,
since the comets range over all
parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits....
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets,
and comets, could only proceed from the counsel
and dominion of an intelligent and powerful
Being" (Newton, "Scholium," 369).
The Universe Needs Intelligent Cause
(1642 1727)‑

8. Life Needs an Intelligent Cause
Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807 1873)‑
“[Darwin] lost sight of the most
striking of the features, and the
one which permeates the whole,
namely, that there runs
throughout Nature
unmistakable evidence of
thought, corresponding to the
mental operations of our own
mind…and no theory that
overlooks this element can be
true to nature” (American
Journal of Science, 1860).

Outline
II. The Mistakes of Creation Views

A. Focusing Science on Secondary
Causes (to the neglect of the
Primary Cause)
Bacon said: “The final cause rather
corrupts than advances the sciences….
The efficient and …remote causes…are
but slight and superficial, and
contribute little, if anything, to true and
active science" (Novum Organum,
2:2:122;).
He speaks of secondary causes or "fixed
laws” (1:129:119) and of “Man, being the servant and
interpreter of Nature, who can do and understand so
much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in
thought through the course of nature. Beyond this he
neither knows anything or can do anything” (N.O. 1.1,
39).

B. Separation of Science & the Bible
Bacon warns against any “…attempt
to found a system of natural philosophy
on the first chapter of Genesis, the book
of Job and other parts of Scripture …
because from this unwholesome mixture
of things human and divine there arises
not only a fantastic philosophy but also
a heretical religion. Very meet it is
therefore that we be sober-minded, and
give faith that only which is faith’s”
(N.O. 1.65, 62).

Galileo (1564 1642):‑ Affirmed Separation
of Science from the Primary Cause of
Things
He said that "It is the
intention of the Holy Spirit
[in Scripture] to teach us
how one goes to heaven, and
not how the heavens go"
(Duchess..., 11).
Note: He believed that the supernatural is the
source of the natural world, but the proper
domain of science is “natural phenomena”
(ibid., 17).

C. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727): “God-of-the-
Gaps” Error
Newton invoked divine intervention to explain
the irregular orbit of some planets. This opened
him to the criticism that God was used to fill in
the gaps in our ignorance of natural causes.
Many things (like meteors and eclipses) were
once thought to have a divine cause. Hence, it
came to be believed that acts of “creation” also
resulted from natural causes yet to be
discovered.

Other “God-of-the-Gap” ErrorsOther “God-of-the-Gap” Errors
““Let us recall that formerly, and at no remoteLet us recall that formerly, and at no remote
epoch, an unusual rain or an extreme drought, aepoch, an unusual rain or an extreme drought, a
comet having in train a very long tail,comet having in train a very long tail, thethe
eclipses, the aurora borealis, and in general alleclipses, the aurora borealis, and in general all
the unusual phenomena were regarded as sothe unusual phenomena were regarded as so
many signs of celestial wrath.many signs of celestial wrath. Heaven wasHeaven was
invoked in order to avert their baneful influence.invoked in order to avert their baneful influence.
[However,] No one prayed to have the planets[However,] No one prayed to have the planets
and the sun arrested in their courses;and the sun arrested in their courses;
observation had soon made apparent the futilityobservation had soon made apparent the futility
of such prayers” (Laplace,of such prayers” (Laplace, ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 5)., 5).

D. Literalistic Misinterpretations of the
Bible Used to Reject Scientific Observations
Lactantius (c. 300): He ridiculed those who taught the
earth was a “sphere” (Galileo, Duchess, 5). Many
believed the earth is square since the Bible speaks of
“the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).
Hutton: Natural disasters are not divine judgments:
“A volcano is not made on purpose to frighten
superstitious people into fits of piety and devotion…”
(Hutton, Theory of the Earth, 146).
Luther: He is quoted as rejecting Copernicus by
saying, “I believe Scripture, for Joshua commanded
the sun to stand still and not the earth” (Luther’s
Works, Vol. 54, “Table Talk,” June 4, 1539).

E. Cuvier: Animal Species are Fixed
Founder: Comparative Anatomy
Author: Lessons on Comparative
Anatomy (1800-1805), 5 vols.
Fixity of Species: He believed
that "animals have certain
fixed and natural characters."
But modern science has
challenged this (e.g., micro-
evolution).
“Kinds” of Genesis: These were
identified with “species.”
George Cuvier
1769-1832

Summary of Creationist’s Errors
1. Focusing science on secondary causes (which
drew attention from study of a primary cause).
2. Separating science from matters relating to
God took science out of matters of origin.
3. Invoking God to explain unusual events in the
universe which have since been explained by
natural causes.
4. Using literalistic misinterpretations of the Bible
to reject scientific observations.
5. Assuming the fixity of species which has since
been challenged by micro-evolution.

Outline
I. The Origin Science in Creation
II. The Mistakes of Creation Views
III. The Rise of Anti-Creation Views

A. Philosophical Roots of
Naturalism
1. Benedict Spinoza (1632-77)
"Nothing then, comes to
pass in nature in contravention to her
universal laws, for...she keeps a fixed and
immutable order." Hence, "a miracle,
whether in contravention to, or beyond,
nature, is a mere absurdity" (Theologico-
Politico Tractatus [1670], 1.83, 87, 92).

2. Hume’s Argument for Only
Natural Causes (1748)
1. Natural laws describe regular events.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare event.
3. The probability for the regular is always
greater than the probability for the rare
(based on past experience).
4. Wise persons base their belief on the greater
probability.
5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in

B. Manifestation of Naturalism in Science
1. Limiting Science to Secondary Causes
““Therefore, there is no occasionTherefore, there is no occasion
for having recourse to anyfor having recourse to any
unnatural [cause]…or to theunnatural [cause]…or to the
agency of any preternaturalagency of any preternatural
cause,cause, in explaining that whichin explaining that which
actually appears…. All theseactually appears…. All these
[geological phenomena] are the[geological phenomena] are the
effects ofeffects of steady causessteady causes; each of these has its proper; each of these has its proper
purpose in the system of the earth.” Further,purpose in the system of the earth.” Further, “What“What
reason have we to look out for any other causes, besidesreason have we to look out for any other causes, besides
those which naturally arise from that constitution ofthose which naturally arise from that constitution of
things?”things?” ((Theory of the Earth [1795]Theory of the Earth [1795], 1:167; 2:468)., 1:167; 2:468).
1726-17971726-1797

2. All Causes are Natural Causes
Laplace concluded that "all the
effects of nature are only
mathematical results of a small
number of immutable laws.” For
"All events…are a result of it
[nature] just as necessarily as the
revolutions of the sun”
(Probabilities [1814], 177).
(1749 1827)‑

3. Immanuel Kant (d. 1812): The Cause of
the physical universe is Natural Cause
"I find matter bound to certain
necessary laws. Out of its
universal dissolution and
dissipation I see a beautiful and
orderly whole quite naturally
developing itself. This does not
take place by accident, or of chance; but it is
perceived that natural qualities necessarily
bring it about" (Universal Natural History, l3-14).

4. Kant: The Cause of Life is a Natural
Cause Too
"We can here say with intelligent certainty
and without audacity: 'Give me matter, and I
will construct a world out of it!' i.e. give me
matter and I will show you how a world shall
arise out of it." And "...are we in a position to
say: `Give me matter and I will show you how a
caterpillar can be produced?'" (Kant, Universal
Natural History, 17).

Kant's answer was a bold Yes!
However, he believed that "...the
origin of the whole present constitution
of the universe, will become intelligible
before the production of a single herb or
a caterpillar by mechanical causes, will
become distinctly and completely
understood" (UNH, 17).

5. “God-of-the-Gaps” is Rejected
Laplace on Newton: "I must here remark how
Newton has erred on this point, from the
method which he has otherwise so happily
applied" (Exposition on the System of the World
[1796] 2:4:331).
Such an error arises when "the imagination,
impatient to arrive at the causes, takes
pleasure in creating hypotheses, and often it
changes the facts in order to adapt them to its
work” (Probabilities [1814], 183).

Laplace to Napoleon:
When asked by Napoleon
about the absence of God
in his work, Laplace is
said to have replied: “Sire,
I have no need of that
hypothesis.”
(1749 1827)‑

“God-of-the Gaps”
Lyell citesLyell cites Cirillo Generelli (1749) who, based onCirillo Generelli (1749) who, based on
Lazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable toLazzaro Moro (1740), declared “Nor is it reasonable to
call the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to makecall the Deity capriciously upon the stage, and to make
him work miracles for the sake of confirming ourhim work miracles for the sake of confirming our
preconceived hypothesis….preconceived hypothesis…. I hold in utter abomination,I hold in utter abomination,
most learned Academicians! Those systems which aremost learned Academicians! Those systems which are
built with their foundations in the air, andbuilt with their foundations in the air, and cannot becannot be
propped up without a miracle…propped up without a miracle… I undertake with theI undertake with the
assistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marineassistance of Moro, to explain to you how these marine
animals were transported into the mountains byanimals were transported into the mountains by
natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).natural causes [like earthquakes]” (Lyell, PG, 53).

6. No Need for an Intelligent Cause
Laplace also rejected Newton's contention
that a blind force "could never make all the
planets move thus….” He asked, "...could not
this arrangement of the planets be itself an
effect of the laws of motion; and could not the
supreme intelligence which Newton makes to
interfere, make it to depend on a more general
phenomenon? such as, according to us, a
nebulous matter distributed in various masses
throughout the immensity of the heavens"
(Systems, 2:4, 332).

7. The Principle of Continuity:
Eliminates an Original Cause
Laplace believed "we ought then to
regard the present state of the universe as
the effect of its anterior state and as the
cause of the one which is to follow."
So, "present events are connected with
preceding ones by a tie based upon the
evident principle that a thing cannot occur
without a cause which produces it"
(Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

8. The Principle of Regularity
Rules out a Supernatural Cause
“There are things so extraordinary
that nothing can balance their
improbability." Hence, “All events,
even those which…do not seem to
follow the great laws of nature, are a
result of it just as necessarily as the
revolutions of the sun…” (Pierre
Laplace, Probabilities, 144, 3).
These natural laws were called
“fixed” (Bacon), “uniform” (Hume, EHU, X), “steady”
(Hutton, TE, 19), “constant,” “undeviating” (Lyell, PG,
143, 89), and even “immutable” (Laplace, P, 177).

Science Allows No Divine Foot in the Door
“We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs…
because we have a prior commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a materialistic explanation of the
phenomenal world but, on the contrary, …we are
forced by our a priori adherence to material
causes…. Moreover that materialism is absolute
for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door”
(Richard Lewontin of Harvard in New York Review
of Books, 1/9/96).

Methodological Naturalism
“It is not by its conclusions but
by its methodological starting
point that modern science
excludes direct creation. Our
methodology would not be honest
if this fact were denied…such is
the faith in the science of our
time, and which we all share”
(C. F. von Weizsacker, The
Relevance of Science; cited in
Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion,
60-61).

How Science Bit the Hand that Fed It
The very natural laws, which were made
possible by the supernatural Creator who
made them, were used to deny Him a role
in the natural world He made!

The very natural laws, which were made
possible by the supernatural Creator who
made them, were used to deny Him a role
in the natural world He made!
Creation which made science possible was
denied a place in the very science that it
made possible.

The very natural laws, which were madeThe very natural laws, which were made
possible by the supernatural Creator whopossible by the supernatural Creator who
made them, were used to deny Him a rolemade them, were used to deny Him a role
in the natural world He made!in the natural world He made!
Creation which made science possible wasCreation which made science possible was
denied a place in the very science that itdenied a place in the very science that it
made possible.made possible.
Operation science, which was madeOperation science, which was made
possible by a supernatural cause,possible by a supernatural cause,
swallowed the supernatural cause whichswallowed the supernatural cause which
made it possible.made it possible.

Father of Modern Science Warned
about Stress on Secondary Causes
.
Ironically, Francis Bacon
warned “…that experience
demonstrates how learned
men have been arch-heretics,
how learned times have been
inclined to atheism, and how
the contemplation of second
causes doth derogate from our
dependence upon God who is
the first cause” (Advancement
of Learning I.2).

Outline
II. The Mistakes of Creationists
IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists

IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists:
A. The Nature of the Mistake: Assuming all
causes are natural causes
1. Methodological Naturalism
2. Nature-of-the-Gap Fallacy
B. The Result of the Mistake: Courts Rulings

(McLean Court (Jan 5, 1982):
“Such a concept is not science because it
depends upon supernatural intervention
which is not guided by natural law” (176).
“Such a reasoning process is not the
product of natural law; not explainable by
natural law; nor is it tentative” (Geisler,
Creator in the Courtroom, 177).
“Scopes II” Court Used It

Supreme Court was Based on It:
(The Edwards Decision, 1987)
“The Act impermissibly endorses the religious
belief that a supernatural being created
humankind.” (1. (b))
“Concepts concerning God or a supreme being
of some sort are manifestly religious.” (V, A)
“The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana
Legislature was clearly to advance the religious
viewpoint that a supernatural being created
mankind.” (III, B)
Note: If this is true, then The Declaration
of Independence is unconstitutional!

Phillip Johnson Pinpointed It
“It is easy to see why
scientific naturalism is an
attractive philosophy for
scientists. It gives science a
virtual monopoly on the
production of knowledge,
and it assures scientists that
no important questions are in
principle beyond scientific
investigation” (p. 121).

C. The Basis of the
Mistake: Hume (1748)
1. Natural laws describe regular events.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare event.
3. The probability for the regular is always
greater than the probability for the rare
(based on past experience).
4. Wise persons base their belief on the
greater probability.
5. Hence, wise persons should not believe in

Hume’s Error: He confuses probability (based on
past events) and evidence (for an observed
event).
Illustration: The improbability of a perfect hand
of bridge being dealt (based on past experience)
should not outweigh the evidence of four honest
reliable witnesses when a perfect hand is dealt.
The same is true of a hole-in-one in golf.
Even Naturalists Accept Improbable (Rare) Events:
1. Big Bang origin of the universe is rare.
2. Spontaneous generation of first life is rare.
3. Macroevolution (from microbe to man) is rare.

D. Manifestations of the Mistake:
1. Failing to Distinguish Two kinds of Causes
Natural Intelligent
This is so no matter how long ago it was.

NaturalNatural IntelligentIntelligent
TWO TYPES OF CAUSESTWO TYPES OF CAUSES
Sand Dune Sand Castle

Repeated Experience Shows
by the “Principle of Regularity”
Natural Cause Intelligent Cause
Water Falls Power Plant
Crystals Chandelier
Sand Dunes Sand Castle
Round Stone Arrowhead
Principle of Uniformity demands that similar
past events also have a similar intelligent
cause to present ones.

2. Overlooking the difference between
Two Kinds of Science
Origin Science Operation Science
(Forensic Science) (Empirical Science)
About origin of things About operation of things
Past singularities Present regularities
Based on: Based on:
causality observation
analogy repetition
Intelligent causes possible Only natural causes
Note: Neither creation nor macro-evolution is
an empirical science. Both are forensic in
type.

Illustration: a Motor
Its Origin Its Operation
How it Originates How it Operates
(by an intelligent cause) (by natural laws)
Conductor
Current (spark)
Power source (gas)
Law of gravity
Laws of friction
Laws of motion
Laws of tension
Laws of combustion
(which laws never
produce a motor)

3. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism
1. Principle of uniformity (analogy) only
demands that like effects have like causes,
not that all effects have natural causes.
2. In fact, uniformity of causal connection
with certain effects demands that some
causes are intelligent, not natural (e.g.,
arrow heads, language, codes, forensic
evidence, and archaeological artifacts).

4. Darwin’s False Analogy between Artificial
Selection and Natural Selection
1. Analogies are good when the similarities are1. Analogies are good when the similarities are
strong.strong.
2. But analogies are bad when the differences are2. But analogies are bad when the differences are
great, such as those between artificialgreat, such as those between artificial
selection and natural selection.selection and natural selection.

A False Analogy: Crucial Differences
Artificial Selection Natural Selection
Intelligently Guided Not Intelligently Guided
Goal in Mind No Goal in Mind
Choice of Breeds No Choice of Breeds
Interruption to Reach Goal No Interruption for Goal
Protection from No Protection from
Destructive Forces Destructive Forces
Freaks Preserved Freaks Eliminated
Preferential Survival No Preferential Survival
Note: Evolution is based on crucial similarities of these,
and these are different in almost all crucial respects.

MicroevolutionMicroevolution
within typewithin type:: YESYES
MacroevolutionMacroevolution
across types:across types: NONO
SurvivalSurvival of an existing kind differs fromof an existing kind differs from arrivalarrival of aof a
brand new kind.brand new kind.
Small changesSmall changes withinwithin a typea type of life differ from bigof life differ from big
changeschanges fromfrom one type to another typeone type to another type of life.of life.

5. Failing to See How the Principle of
Uniformity Supports Creation
“Analogy is based upon the probability that
similar things have causes of the same kind and
produce the same effects." And "this probability
increases as the similitude becomes more
perfect" (Laplace, Probabilities, 180).
Thus, scientific views about the past are
derived with "the aid of proofs drawn from these
analogies [with the present]" (ibid., 100).
But repeated experience in the present shows
us that some things have intelligent causes. The
same is true of similar events in the past.

6. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes
1. This assumes (not proves) there is no beginning to
the universe and/or life.
a. We know there is a beginning of life.
b. There is good evidence that there is a
beginning of the universe (see below).
2. It misunderstands the principle of causality.
a. Every cause does not need a cause.
b. Only every effect needs a cause.
1) Everything that begins needs a cause, but--.
2) The Beginner does not need a cause.

Voiding the Principle of ContinuityVoiding the Principle of Continuity
"There is a kind of religion in
science. It is the religion of a person
who believes there is order and
harmony in the universe.... Every
effect must have its cause: There is
no first cause.... This religious faith
of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world
had a beginning …(Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-
114).
The principle of continuity is based on false premises
that: 1) Every cause has a cause rather than every effect
has a cause; 2) The universe is eternal (which the
scientific evidence shows it is not).

7. “The God-of-the-Gap” Objection Fails on Origins
1. The “God-of-the-gaps” argument is a valid objection
when applied to empirical science, that is, the
operation of the universe (because regular patterns are
always produced by natural causes, even if we do not
know what these causes are).
2. But singularities like the origin of matter and of life are
not regular events. Hence, they do not automatically
call for a natural cause.
3. When applied to singularities, “God-of-Gaps” is based
on the false premise that all causes are natural causes.
4. It is not the absence of evidence that calls for an
intelligent cause; It is the presence of specified
complexity that calls for an intelligent cause.
5. It is not the absence of evidence that leads to positing a
supernatural Cause of the Universe but the presence of
unique evidence from the Big Bang and the Anthropic
Principle.

Summary: Basic Mistakes of Anti-Creationists
A. Limiting science to only natural causes (“nature-of-
the-gaps” fallacy= Methodological Naturalism).
B. Failing to see that only regular events demand
natural causes (Empirical science deals only with
regular events. Singularities may have an intelligent
cause. Only the evidence can tell).
C. Failing to see how principles of regularity and
uniformity (analogy) point to an intelligent cause.
D. Confusing Uniformity and Uniformitarianism.
E. Failing to distinguish Origin Science from
Operation Science.
F. Assuming an Unbroken Continuity of Causes.
Conclusion: Given these mistakes, naturalism fails, and
positing an intelligent Creator is scientific.

Outline
II. The Mistakes of Creationists
IV. The Mistakes of Anti-Creationists
V. The Reemergence of Origin Science
A. New Discoveries

1.1. Reopening the Door to God:Reopening the Door to God:
With a Big Bang!With a Big Bang!
"The scientists pursuit of the past ends in the
moment of creation…” (Jastrow, God and the
Astronomers, 115).

Guillermo Gonzalez
2. Discovering--2. Discovering--

Intelligent Design of Life:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows
naturally from the data itself--not from sacred
books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that
biochemical systems were designed by an
intelligent agent is a humdrum process that
requires no new principles of logic or science."
"Life on earth at its most fundamental level,
in its most critical components, is the product of
intelligent activity" (Behe, DBB, 193).

B. Old Principles
1. The Principle of Causality
Bacon: He speaks of “knowledge by causes"
(Novum Organum., 2:2:121).
Hume: “I never asserted so absurd a
proposition as that anything might arise
without a cause" (Hume, Letters, 1:187).
Laplace: He speaks of “the evident principle
that a thing cannot occur without a cause
which produces it" (Laplace, Probabilities, 4).

2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)2. The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)
Hume (1748):Hume (1748): “All our reasoning concerning matter of“All our reasoning concerning matter of
fact are founded on a species offact are founded on a species of analogyanalogy, which, which leads usleads us
to expect from any cause the same eventsto expect from any cause the same events, which we, which we
have observed to result from similar causes.have observed to result from similar causes. Where theWhere the
causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect…” (AnAn
Enquiry Concerning Human UnderstandingEnquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. IX)., Sect. IX).
Laplace (1814):Laplace (1814): “Analogy is based upon probability, that“Analogy is based upon probability, that
similar things have causes of the same kind and producesimilar things have causes of the same kind and produce
the same effects.the same effects. This probability increases as theThis probability increases as the
similitude becomes more perfect” (similitude becomes more perfect” (ProbabilitiesProbabilities, 180)., 180).
Lyell (1887):Lyell (1887): “Causes“Causes similar in kindsimilar in kind and energy to thoseand energy to those
now acting, have produced the former changes of thenow acting, have produced the former changes of the
earth’s surface…” (Lyell,earth’s surface…” (Lyell, Principles of GeologyPrinciples of Geology, 88)., 88).
Charles Lyell (1814)

3. The Principle of Regularity
David Hume (1748):David Hume (1748): Causal connections are positedCausal connections are posited
based on constant conjunction (custom).based on constant conjunction (custom).
““All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects ofAll inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of
custom....custom.... Custom, then, is the great guide of humanCustom, then, is the great guide of human
life” (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I).life” (Enquiry, Sect. 5, Part I).
This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience”This “constant conjunction” or “uniform experience”
can be so regular that we may even call it a “proof”can be so regular that we may even call it a “proof”
(Sect. 6, note 8; Sect X, Part I). In fact, “there are some(Sect. 6, note 8; Sect X, Part I). In fact, “there are some
causes, which are entirelycauses, which are entirely uniform and constant inuniform and constant in
producing a particular effect;producing a particular effect; and no instance has everand no instance has ever
been found of any failure or irregularity in theirbeen found of any failure or irregularity in their
operation. Fire has always burned, and wateroperation. Fire has always burned, and water
suffocated every human creature…and gravity issuffocated every human creature…and gravity is anan
universal lawuniversal law, which has hitherto, which has hitherto admitted of noadmitted of no
exception”exception” (ibid., Sect. 6).(ibid., Sect. 6).

V. The Reemergence of Origin ScienceV. The Reemergence of Origin Science
A. New Discoveries
B. Old Principles
C. New Conclusions
1. A Supernatural Cause
2. A Super-intelligent Cause
3. An Intelligent Designer

Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow:
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence
leads to a biblical view of the origin of the
world…; the chain of events leading to man
commence suddenly and sharply at a definite
moment in time, in a flash of light and energy"
(God and the Astronomers, 14).

In the Beginning God...
"The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in
the moment of creation. This is an
exceedingly strange development,
unexpected by all but theologians. They
have always accepted the word of the Bible:
`In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth'" (Jastrow, God and the
Astronomers, 115).

Second Law of Thermodynamics
•
• “Once hydrogen has been burned
within that star and converted to
heavier elements, it can never be
restored to its original state.
Minute by minute and year by
year, as hydrogen is used up in
stars, the supply of this element
in the universe grows smaller”
(Jastrow, God and the
Astronomers, 15-16).

The Logical ConclusionThe Logical Conclusion
1. The natural world had beginning.
2. Whatever began, had a cause.
3. The natural world had a
supernatural Cause.
(The Cause of all of nature can’t be
natural. It is beyond nature).

Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1Big Bang Points to Genesis 1:1
“Whatever its name, as far as
most physicists are concerned, the
Big Bang is now part of the
established structure of modern
physics…. If the Big Bang
expresses a new idea in physics, it
suggests an old idea in thought:
In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth” (Berlinski,
The Devil’s Delusion, 70).

Former Atheist:
“The Big Bang cries out
for a divine explanation.
It forces us to the
conclusion that nature
had a definite beginning.
I cannot see how nature
could have created itself.
Only a super-natural
force that is outside of
space and time could
have done that” (p. 67).

The Anthropic Principle
"The anthropic principle is the most
interesting development next to the proof
of the creation, and it is even more
interesting because it seems to say that
science itself has proven, as a hard fact,
that this universe was made, was
designed, for man to live in. It is a very
theistic result" (Jastrow, Christianity Today
[1982], 17).

Universe was Fine-Tuned for Human Life
1. 21 % of oxygen in air is just right for human life.
2. Gravitational force is perfect for life to exist.
3. Distance from the sun provides the right heat for life.
4. Expansion rate of universe is just right for life.
5. Thickness of earth’s crust is the correct amount for life.
6. Tilt of the earth offers the best condition for life.
7. The speed of light is proper amount for life.
8. The strong nuclear force holds the atoms together.
9. The distance between stars is necessary for life.
10. The cosmological constant (energy density of
space) is minutely right for matter to exist.
11. The right amount of seismic activity is needed for life.
12. The position of Jupiter protects life on earth.

Just the Right TimeJust the Right Time
The earth is not onlyThe earth is not only
(1) in the best place(1) in the best place
in the solar systemin the solar system
for life, and (2) thefor life, and (2) the
best place in thebest place in the
universe for life, butuniverse for life, but
(3) it now is the best(3) it now is the best
time to view its placetime to view its place
in the universe!in the universe!

New Evidence from:
1. The Big Bang
2. The Anthropic Principle
3. Micro-biology

New Evidence from:
1. The Big Bang
2. The Anthropic Principle
3. Micro-biology
Plus three venerable scientific principles:
1) The Principle of Causality
2) The Principle of Uniformity (Analogy)
3) The Principle of Regularity

Life Needs an Intelligent Cause
Harvard’s Louis Agassiz (1807 1873)‑
“[Darwin] lost sight of the most
striking of the features, and the
one which permeates the whole,
namely, that there runs
throughout Nature
unmistakable evidence of
thought, corresponding to the
mental operations of our own
mind…and no theory that
overlooks this element can be
true to nature” (American
Journal of Science, 1860).

One Ameba
=1,000 Sets
One Ameba
=1,000 Sets

WhoseWhose Signature in the CellSignature in the Cell??
Stephen MeyerStephen Meyer
““Indeed, ourIndeed, our uniformuniform
experience affirmsexperience affirms thatthat
specified information—specified information—whetherwhether
inscribed in hieroglyphics,inscribed in hieroglyphics,
written in a book, encoded in awritten in a book, encoded in a
radio signal, or produced in aradio signal, or produced in a
simulation experimentsimulation experiment——
alwaysalways arise from an intelligentarise from an intelligent
source,source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.from a mind and not a strictly material process.
So the discovery of the specified digital information inSo the discovery of the specified digital information in
the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferringthe DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring
that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA….that intelligence played a role in the origin of the DNA….
Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma”Intelligent design best explains the DNA enigma” (347).(347).

a bacterial rotary motora bacterial rotary motor
Analogy calls for an intelligent Cause of

Non-Theist Ally of Intelligent DesignNon-Theist Ally of Intelligent Design
He says he see “big holes inHe says he see “big holes in
Darwinism. It’s inadequate as aDarwinism. It’s inadequate as a
theory, and I feel verytheory, and I feel very
sympathetic, very warm, towardssympathetic, very warm, towards
Intelligent Design….Intelligent Design…. We have toWe have to
maintain a completely openmaintain a completely open
mind, andmind, and I see no reason thatI see no reason that
the insights of Christianthe insights of Christian
theology…should be ruled out oftheology…should be ruled out of
court at the very beginningcourt at the very beginning
because they’re incompatiblebecause they’re incompatible
with a certain idea of whatwith a certain idea of what
science is really about” (cited inscience is really about” (cited in
WorldWorld, 12/19/09)., 12/19/09).
David Berlinski, Ph.D.David Berlinski, Ph.D.

How Science was Hijacked and
now has-
“Returned to the Hand that Fed It”
Bacon
Kepler Galileo
Newton

Where have all the flowers gone?
• Nature returns to its supernatural
roots.
• The natural creation points to its
supernatural Creator.
• Evidence of thought in living things
leads to the Thinker behind it.

The Supernatural Reemerges
–
• "That there are what
I or anyone would call
super natural forces at
work is now, I think, a
scientifically proven
fact" (Jastrow in
Christianity Today [1982],
8).

“It is simply inconceivable
that any material matrix
or field can generate
agents who think and
act…. A force field does
not plan or think. So…the
world of living, conscious,
thinking beings has to
originate in a living
Source, a Mind” (There is
a God, 183).
Anthony Flew: Former World-famous Atheist

For More InformationFor More Information
www.normgeisler.com

Languages Have Specified Complexity
Hubert Yockey: “The sequence
hypothesis applies directly to the
protein and the genetic text as well
as to written languages and
therefore the treatment is
mathematically identical” (Journal
of Theoretical Biology, 1981).

Information Theory
Letter sequence
reveals whether
information is
being conveyed by
a series of letters,
even if one does
not know the
language.Claude E. Shannon

2. Failing to Understand the
Science of Intelligent Causes.
Sciences Using Intelligent Causes:
1. Forensic Science
2. Archaeology
3. Cryptology
4. Information Theory
5. SETI Program
6. Intelligent Design (ID) Science

Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

Semelhante a Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com) (20)

Mais de godknt777

Mais de godknt777 (8)

Último

Último (20)

Unmasking the Hijackers of Science - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)