To Believe in Evolution is to Believe in Perpetual Motion

"Since a given system can never of its own accord go over into another equally probable state but into a more probable one, it is likewise impossible to construct a system of bodies that after traversing various states returns periodically to its original state, that is a perpetual motion machine." -- Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann.

The above-stated principle has been the subject of countless experiments and the development of the physics of thermodynamics as well as many other areas, especially where energy, information and complexity are concerned.  It has never even once been falsified, not even on a small scale.

The natural process of the decay of any physical system of any significant complexity beyond natural atomic and very simple molecular and crystalline structures is such that it is in accord with the principle as stated above by Boltzmann.  Even simple molecular and crystalline structures are subject to this process and, ultimately, so will atomic structures and even subatomic particles eventually fall into decay, given a long enough time in this current universe without the Creator's intervention.  To be sure, Boltzmann, like a few others of recent history, was brilliant and incisive.  It may seem an obvious thing to us in this day and age but such things always do after somebody had the insight to recognise and point it out.

The very concept of macro-evolution, as suggested by Darwin and many others since, Dawkins in particular, would only be possible if precisely the opposite of Boltzmann's statement were actually true.  Not only must it be possible to return to a state of equal probability but, in fact, it must be possible to go to an even less probable state without intelligent intervention.  This also includes the evolution of the universe from "nothing" and other forms of evolution of increasingly irreducibly complex systems.  For such forms of evolution to be possible, it must be true that a system can progress from a more probable (less ordered, less irreducibly complex) state to a less probable (more ordered, more irreducibly complex) state.  This would defy all known physics.  The assumption has to be that there is some form of as yet unknown physics that coexists with known physics while simultaneously directly countering it.  Such a system would be complete chaos and nothing logically predictable would or could ever occur.  Yet that is not the state in which we find ourselves, so either known physics is true and evolution is false or evolution is true and known physics is false.  It cannot be both ways.  Since my computer, cell phone, electrical systems, biological systems, and so forth, all seem to operate in accordance with known physics, I think I will stick with the first of the two aforementioned possibilities.

In short, to believe in evolution is to believe in perpetual motion machines and the possibility of over-unity power generators, as such would be the outcome given that Boltzmann's statements were the opposite of the truth.  If such systems as over-unity generators were naturally possible, producing more output energy than consuming as input, the universe would have long since destroyed itself or, if not, where has all the energy gone?  More mysterious and conveniently undetectable and ever-increasing dark matter/energy that will forever elude us?  Are we now to defy the principle of the conservation of energy?  Interesting how the idea of increasing irreducible complexity through natural means also implies the certainty of an unlimited energy buildup that would utterly destroy all that complexity in the first place.  This form of reasoning is heavily used in mathematics, where one first assumes as true what one is demonstrating to be false and after rearranging the equations one arrives at a conclusion whereby the initial assumption contradicts and, thus, falsifies itself, since it cannot be both true and false simultaneously.  "Schrödinger's cat!" did I hear you say?  The concept of multiple superimposed states of varying probability pertains to measuring a system and not to the system's actual state.  It is merely a convenient tool whereby we presume all possible states exist simultaneously until we collapse the multi-valued state into a single state by making the experimental observation.  That such a multi-valued state actually exists in any real physical way is a completely unprovable claim.  Additionally, the more probable states will occur more frequently so the trend will always be from less to more probable as a system progresses through possible states and, for systems of virtually uncountable possible states, there is an uncountable number of states of higher probability than any less-than-certain state one might care to consider in the first place.  In any case, in the same manner as the mathematical approach just mentioned, Darwinian evolution and its kin are self-negating concepts.  The universe has not incinerated itself and all natural systems continue to progressively decay, moving ineluctably toward states of increasing probability.

Psa 10:4 ASV  The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.

Psa 14:1b ASV  The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.

Frankly, I don't believe in fairies.  Dawkins and his ilk are the biblical definition of fools.  There are many who believe in the nonsense of evolution but the most educated who do so are the greatest fools.  Their so-called "wisdom" is utterly contemptible.  Sad, really, because I am certain that Dawkins has the capacity for greatness.  He simply refuses a love of the truth.

Pride is deadly.

On Discerning the Deceiver

A relatively short post... being that I am strongly inclined to write quite long posts, perhaps a rest for these arthritic fingers -- Ross River virus induced -- would be in order now and then, especially because a very large part of my work involves CAD and coding.

Anyway, it is all very simple and quite scientific.  In science, as any sagacious sapient (yes, I used an adjective as a noun... please don't shoot me) would understand, all meaningful theories must be logically self-consistent and, being that they operate within a closed system, the universe, must be logically consistent with all other theories of things, within that same universe, that are themselves still standing so that the theory of everything must ultimately be ONE consistent and logically perfect theory.  (I say "closed universe" because, regardless of whether or not it has or has not infinite spatio-temporal extent, it is closed in that the laws of nature do not change and are consistent throughout, so all physical phenomena must operate within the confines of those laws.)  This is what one may term the "world view", whether it be based in science, philosophy, religious beliefs, whatever.  To disprove any theory, all that is necessary is to find a single logical inconsistency and the whole edifice collapses.  One can never prove a theory true because, even though some experiment may seem to validate a certain aspect of a theory, there are an infinite number of possible scenarios within which the theory, or aspects thereof, must be tested and must not fail in every single case.  It is easier simply to find just one thing that is wrong and discard the theory (often, theories are not actually completely discarded but are revised, but this is in essence the same thing since the revised theory is logically different from its predecessor and is, therefore, a different theory that merely bears some similarity to the previous one).  The success of an idea depends on how well it has withstood the onslaught of assaults from testing.  Tests must be such that they test a unique aspect of the theory which would result in a discernibly different outcome for other known theories of the same phenomena.  However, this does not ever rule out the possibility of a new and different, as yet unknown, theory that would produce the same results in this test as that theory currently under investigation, thus the impossibility of proving a theory true.  Nevertheless, the more such tests a theory does not fail under, the more trusted the theory becomes in spite of its imperfections (there are no perfect man-made theories of anything), though it is never to be accepted as indisputable fact.  It is ALWAYS disputable.  There is no room for consensus in science.  Scepticism, with an enthusiastic desire to test and discover, putting aside all expectations, is the only honest scientific approach.  A single fact can topple a theory that has stood up to thousands of tests over thousands of years but no amount of success can establish a man-made theory as perfect.  Note that scepticism does NOT equate to doubt or denial.  Scepticism is merely the initial acceptance of the null hypothesis until said null hypothesis is sufficiently well demonstrated to be in doubt. 

Moving on...

So, what has all this to do with discerning the deceiver?  Quite simple, really.

Truth is such that every aspect of it is an aspect of the perfect theory of everything and, therefore, must be absolutely logically consistent and all-encompassing.  It must be ONE.  Too many Christians make the mistake of trying to discern the lies of the deceiver by learning about all of his tricks in a vain attempt to spot them all.  The devil has thousands of years of experience in this matter... how foolish we are to think that we can outwit him.  The problem is that there is no end to the number of possible tricks that can be used to beguile one into believing nonsense, illogical scenarios couched ever more deeply in seeming truths.  That is, there are an infinite number of possible lies buried in an infinite variety of frameworks of apparent truth.  Obviously far too much to deal with.

So, rather than waste precious time trying to know all of the tricks of the deceiver, why not simply spend that time getting to know the truth?  That is tantamount to spending all of that valuable time getting to know Christ.  Once you are saturated with truth, with His Spirit (the assumption being made here that you have already received that first seed of truth, you are already born again of the Spirit, for without that seed the tree cannot grow), any lie that comes along will become apparent, not always in a direct sense but often as a deep sense of suspicion, even if you do not immediately understand why your "gut" feels that way.  Do not misunderstand, I do not speak here of basing a decision on an emotional response but merely that hidden information can trigger emotions.  It is a deep-seated sense of suspicion, a kind of scepticism, a knowledge that something is amiss without immediately knowing exactly what is wrong.  Essentially, it is the result of a deeply buried neural response to a complex pattern which has, possibly, never been directly consciously linked before.  It takes time to dig it out.  Emotional responses, as decision-makers, tend to mislead and cannot be trusted but must be carefully analysed so that only decisions based on the logical outcome of such an analysis, which takes into account all external factors, can be trusted.  An emotional response may alert you to your deep seated suspicion but, without careful analysis, no sensible decision can be made.  In any case, you will be on guard against every possible manner of deception even without knowing how it works.  Untruth will "smell bad" in a spiritual sense.  The words may appear all very flowery and appealing, even flattering (an oft-used snare) but the flowers will smell bad, if you are so immersed constantly in truth that it becomes, as they say, "second-nature".  You will sense something is wrong even if it takes you a month of Sundays to work it out later.  More importantly, becoming completely imbued with the Spirit of Truth will lead to developing the precious fruit of the Spirit which is treasured in the citizens of the eternal kingdom of God.  That fruit cannot grow if the tree's growth is stunted by a lack of proper nutrient and clean water... which is what would happen to those whose focus is always on the enemy and his schemes.

Don't waste time discovering the wiles of the devil... spend your life getting to know God and, as you draw nearer to God, the devil will flee further from you.  Soon enough you will see the deceiver coming while yet miles away.  The problem with science, as we know it, is that it is never certain of the truth.  The beauty of knowing God is that He is the truth.

Mat 6:33 KJV  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things (everything you actually need) shall be added unto you.