The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor

Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaker
Books, Articles
Audio, Video

(503) 255-9500
Portland, Oregon

“Scientific American”, the premier monthly publication for the intellectual layman, has become an apologetic arm for the Theory of Evolution.  While, this publication cannot alone claim credit for the social-philosophical tone of the nation, it nevertheless provides a powerful social force and voice for the scientific justification for the religion of Secular Humanism.  

The Theory of Evolution can be summarized as a theory whose mechanism depends on chance collisions between atoms that form molecules, integrated structures, interdependent systems, and self-replicating systems.  Heat, the disorganized kinetic energy of molecules, provides the force for collisions to forge new chemicals which in turn insert themselves perfectly into the ever-more complex molecular requirements of evolving life.  The random-collision theory is the mechanism underlying the function and adaptation of all life forms.  The theory contends that only sufficient time need pass before all the required chemicals of life form and assemble in proper order to initiate and perpetuate cellular life.  But in considering the probabilities of life forming by chance, we note that Fred Hoyle, noted astrophysicist, has calculated the probability of the formation of one single cell is on the order of 1 chance in 1040,000, which in essence means that life was formed by some other mechanism than chance collision.

To accept the Theory of Evolution as an adequate and sufficient theory requires a religious faith to fill in the large gaps between theory and manifestation.  The scientific establishment has embraced this faith, cloaked it in the language of science, and given the hypothesis of evolution and Godless-creation the aura of fact.  This leaderless cabal has instinctively disguised the gaps which require a true-believer’s faith to accept, and have rejected the existence of God as a first assumption.

As currently elaborated, the theory underlying modern physics provides no plausible origin for the existence of particles, nor adequate explanation for the origin of life.  Still, the human heart longs to understand the mystery of life, to know its purpose, origin and author.  But, men will cling to irrational explanation rather than live in a world without definition or pattern.  When no alternative exists, the possibility that presents itself (even though it is false) will fully occupy people’s hearts and minds.  This is the principle of the Big Lie.  Just because everyone believes it, does not make it true.  At one time people commonly believed the Sun rotated around the Earth.  Until truth is introduced, promoted, and a revolution of possibility takes place, the common thought will remain common.

Current scientific dogma does not consider Godly intervention necessary to explain the assembly of atoms, molecules, tissues, organs, and systems that lead to life.  No credible alternative explanatory theory is offered except the belief in some undiscovered, self-organizing, natural force (not God) which has generated the physical universe.  Life is assumed to have arisen naturally through accidental collisions that formed successively more complex organic molecules, which assembled as cells, and then eventually expressed itself by mutation and accident in all forms of life.  Other rationales have been proffered more recently that try to bridge the huge gap between random particle association and the exquisite organization of the machinery underlying life.  Their ultimate purpose and effect is to negate the need for a Creator/God.  

Science considers the “God Hypothesis” to be a theory which cannot be validated by experiment, and thus has relegated God and spiritual forces to a domain outside of science.  In so doing, science has given itself permission to avoid considering any hypothesis which includes God as one of the parametric forces influencing or composing the system.  Thus by self-imposed definition, science engages in no theoretical or experimental effort which could logically conclude that God operates with creative force or as the basis behind the forces seen in the natural world.  

Science has assumed the existence only of natural law, and defined itself as requiring an exclusion from the examination of the origin of natural law as it relates to God.  Thus, there is no attempt by the scientific establishment to examine the hypothesis of God.  No large social force now operates to prove that the “God Theory” is consistent with experiment, hypothesis, and the chaotic patterns of matter, waves, and natural forces.

This Godless scientific belief structure has prospered because of the arcane nature of science, the power that science has to manifest technology and enhance survival, and the social power to enroll public faith by virtue of its megafunding made available by government and industry.  The lay public cannot develop the arguments that credibly counter and replace the Godless scientific dogma.  The public does not speak the language of science, nor have ready access to the bully pulpit of scientific publications and media exposure.  Given the foundational nature of particles and space (the two fields where most of the science funding is spent by physics researchers), the scientific concepts about this ultramicroscopic and ultramacroscopic world will naturally color the lay public’s concepts about the meaning of life, eternity, and the origin of the creation.  

To change these widely held Godless scientific concepts to embrace a God-centered vision of the universe will require the development of a worldview that includes God in the explanations of the currently accepted theories of science.  For the scientific establishment to adopt such a radical change of focus and direction would require a credible theory to be presented by a member (or more probably, a strong and numerous coalition) of the scientific elite.  Alternatively, this revolution in theory could occur when the public generally accepts this new paradigm, and from this reservoir arises the next generation of scientists.

The power of the leadership of the scientific elite is illustrated by the fact that the non-scientific public would have never adopted the Theory of Evolution without it having been given the imprimatur of validity by the scientific intelligentsia.  Until Darwin, the scientific establishment and lay public uniformly recognized God as the background force behind creation and the laws of nature.  Until Darwin, everyone rejected the intuitively improbable assumptions required to justify mindless evolution bringing life from the seas to land and air.

But, the skepticism in the power of time and chance collisions has been overcome because of the trust we place in the scientific establishment.  When they gave their imprimatur to this theory, the leap of faith was made.  Over the years, a segment of the lay public has embraced the theory of evolution just as heartily as they had previously held a God-based creation.  Thus, two antithetical faith systems have emerged and gathered followers – the Secular Humanist/atheistic-evolutionist and the God worshiping creationists.

This division of society into these two faith-systems has strong social implications.  The Judeo-Christian ethic has inspired and directed individual human behavior to overcome its animalistic drives for survival.  The Secular Humanist assumptions of a material-only, evolution-directed, Godless-universe likewise have implications which affect individual behavior and social-ethical norms.  The competition between these factions to enroll and shape the social fabric to reflect their position in turn produces the currently seen cultural-political strife and the moral-legal battles.

The scientific establishment claims superiority for its evolution-based theory because it invokes only the use of natural forces to produce the appearance of life and its complexity.  To the evolutionist, the use of God as the motive force for life’s appearance and complexity is to invoke unnecessary complication into the story of life’s genesis.  The evolutionist attempts to logically and sequentially validate his belief by arguments that include the similarities of family, class, genus, and species exhibited by successively more complex organisms in the tree of speciation.  

The evolutionary argument proposes that the motive force of change is the random development of advantageous traits, the subsequent superior survivability of those traits, and the ultimate competitive advantage in survivability of that new species.  The male dominant solo-allowed breeder enhances the rate of propagation of this trait with the greater survival advantage.  The evolutionist thus uses a series of facts to plausibly justify his hypothesis.  1) The fact that small changes are seen in plants and animal in response to their environment.  2) The fact of the changes in the species have occurred over the millennia.  3) The fact that nature evidences a superb interrelationship and adaptation between plant and animal species and their specific microenvironment.  And, 4) The lack of overt evidence of God acting in ongoing creation.  These datapoints give a sense of possibility that support the chance and time-based scenarios of creation.  And despite its flaws, gaps, and improbabilities, those who embrace the evolutionary model of creation exhibit a true-believer faith.  And, an aspect of this faith in evolution is to oppose as irrational the Creation theory and faith in a God-based creation, Intelligent Design, and/or a theistic-evolution.

But, the scientific establishment must contend with a large body of Christian-based scientific thought which confronts the statistics and mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution.  Examples of such works include: “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, “The Science of God” by Gerold Schroeder, and many others.  These writers have created a powerful apologetic for a Creation-based theory of Intelligent Design.  

One of the most powerful arguments for a creation-based universe is the fact of irreducible complexity.  A cell cannot evolve and adapt to its unique microenvironment if it has not already formed into a cell.  The complexity of the cell is so great that time and chance provide extremely poor explanatory power and mechanism to account for the appearance of the first cell.

The Theory of Evolution speculates that the various life-forms have changed randomly over time, and that only the more well-adapted species have survived.  Thus through a series of mutations, we see successively more complex organisms arising, each more specialized and capable of dealing with the particular stresses of the local environment.  This segregation of life into the various ecological niches provides for the emergence of the wide variety of life, each one specifically adapted to survival in the conditions of their microenvironment.  The accidental damage to the genetic code produced by ionizing radiation (UV rays) provide the raw material for the various species to adapt to the environmental stressors.  The epigenetic coding causes the genetic code to be able to adapt and express itself in widely different ways depending on the microenvironment of each cell.  Thus, damage to the epigenetic coding likewise can contribute to the mechanisms which produce the observed plethora of life-expressions.  The bottom line is that improved survivability selects the fittest species to inhabit each environment, and drives life to express itself as new species over the millennia.

This time-and-chance method of creating species has been given near God-like powers to manifest extremely complex structures and functions over a few hundred million to a billion years.  The rise of life is attributed to time-chance interactions in a favorable environment, and the evolution of organism complexity is attributed to the pressures of the environment, and random beneficial mutations which enhanced survival and reproduction.  The forces and sequences invoked to validate evolution are presented as though they are unassailable in their logic and evidence for a nature-only understanding of the processes involved in creating life and its complexity.  But a detailed examination of the sequences, and the probabilities of those assembly steps, casts doubt on the viability of the Theory of Evolution’s physical-force-only explanation for the rise of life.  

The goal of the Theory of Absolutes is to accurately capture the essence of the foundational nature of the physical universe and life.  To meet this lofty goal, the postulates must be consistent with experimental evidence, and have foundational explanatory power in the domains of the inanimate and animate, subatomic and astronomic, and material and spiritual.

Having provided a foundational God-based theoretical understructure which plausibly explains the physical processes of the inanimate universe and life, we can then argue our case in the court of public opinion with as much scientific authority to plausibly validate Creation, as those who now validate Godless evolution and use the claim of “science” as their authority and validation for its Truth.

The social and spiritual forces arrayed against God (demonic, secular humanist, atheist, religion of scientism…) have used the Theory of Evolution, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics to give metaphorical validity to the theory of a magical Godless universe.  None of these theories claims to be the foundational or general principle upon which the universe was built.  But, they each in their own way have contributed to the plausibility that the universe was actually self-assembling, that life arose without design or purpose, that there is no fundamental law, and that reality cannot be judged because facts do not hold strong weight.  

Evolution takes the most powerful evidence of a Creator, the existence of life and man, and attributes these miraculous and complex organizations of matter and consciousness to mere chance.  Relativity declares that there is no absolute frame of reference, that all perspectives are of equal validity, and thus there is no point of accountability or higher truth than one’s own personal perspective.  Quantum Mechanics declares that reality has no fundamental solidity; that anything can be anywhere, nothing is solid, and there is no truth.

Darwinistic evolution has recently been challenged by a competitor from the New Age community called the Conscious Universe theory.  This theory posits a universe where life has arisen as a result of its inherent divine impersonal nature.  Such a theory is not far removed from the Intelligent Design theory, but it finds appeal with those who wish not to be responsible to a personal God.  At this level of distinction, the individual must decide to choose to worship a personal God or impersonal god.  I believe the evidence falls in favor of the personal God because of the strong need and power of love that we feel so deeply embedded in the human soul.  For such a powerful guiding force to arise in the human heart from an impersonal energy seems less likely than to have arisen from the heart of a personal God.  The entire battle between the kingdom of darkness and light can be easily framed as the necessary background to a universe which has the potential for love, victory, and free will.  

A universe birthed from the mind and heart of a loving God must allow for the choice of rebellion, loss, hurt, and danger.  An alternative which provides no plausible benefit is not a real choice.  Therefore, evil must appear attractive on some level.  Choosing to serve the kingdom of darkness or giving one’s soul to the devil must appear attractive and have benefits.  Such service must promise emotional payoffs in realms such as power, lust, and/or gold.  But, the pursuit of these attractive ends ultimately proves hollow and unsatisfying.  The long-term fruit of rebellion against the moderation and proper engagement in the various passions will produce the bitter fruit of exhaustion and depletion.  Nevertheless, the appearance of benefit associated with following the siren song of seduction allows for true choice in terms of whether or not we should express our love toward God by following His ways.  If the universe was built around God’s desire for true relationship and partnership with man to bring Heaven on Earth, then God must be constrained to operate within self-imposed laws where He can suffer pain and loss at the hands of man’s disobedience.  Such a universe allows for the transactions of life to constitute an actual meaningful struggle where the actions of both God and man produce significant and unavoidable consequences.  And while God rules as the sovereign lawgiver and creator of the understructure of life, humanity’s choices affect the course of history and influence the experience of pleasure for both God and man.  Ultimately God’s way will prevail since the heart will only find satisfaction by choosing His ways.