WHO FLIPPED THE COIN TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE? THE ATHEISTS NIGHTMARE

Excerpts from The Battle for the Beginning by John McArthur:

Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. If God rules, there is no room for chance. God’s rule and chance are mutually exclusive and inherently incompatible. If chance causes or determines anything, God is not truly God.

But chance is not a force and cannot make anything happen. Chance is nothing. It does not exist. And therefore has no power to do anything. The outcome of the flipping of a coin is not a matter of chance, rather, the outcome is exactly determined by all the laws of physics associated with the flipping of the coin and the properties of the coin itself. Under precise laboratory conditions the outcome of a coin-toss will be predictable and repeatable. The only variable, where the laws of physics do not apply, is the decision to toss the coin—or not. Without this initiative there can be no outcome.

Chance is contrary to every law of science (chance precludes anything from being observable and repeatable), every principle of logic, and every intuition of common sense. The most basic principles of thermodynamics, physics and biology suggest that chance simply cannot be the determinative force that has brought about the order and interdependence we see in our universe.

God is the uncaused cause.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible: Genesis 1:1

____________

WHAT IS CHANCE?

Randomness – a lack of pattern or predictability in events.

Probability – the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.

Luck – a purposeless, unpredictable and uncontrollable force that shapes events favourably or unfavourably for an individual, group or cause.
Chance is a philosophical concept.

Anyone who has read or watched the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will know that at the end of the show, as Ford Prefect, on his Spaceship of Infinite Probability, ends his search for The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything with the his answer – 42. The question we all need to ask ourselves is, does the sum total of all my life experiences, all the highs and lows, the joys and sufferings, my childhood, my education, my career, all the good I have done, and the loves of my life, total nothing more than the roll of the dice? I hope your answer is, “No.”

____________

This is the typical non-theistic response: “Evolution is driven by mutation, selection in regard to the species environment, and reproductive success. It is absolutely not due to blind chance. It is completely run by specific events that lead to decent with modification.” This statement is obviously self-contradictory!

It uses mutation as the basis for its argument. The question has to be asked, what caused the mutation? The environment? This then becomes a circular argument and leads to the next obvious question, what caused the changing environment if not chance?

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES

Leave a reply

Lies, Atheism and the Pro-Abortion Movement

Not all atheists are pro-abortion and not all in the pro-choice movement are atheistic, but I have come to the conclusion that most are. What drew me to this conclusion? Let me explain…

In my position as president of Bus Stop Bible Studies I have had the opportunity to work with a number of crisis pregnancy centres, posting advertising panels inside buses with various Canadian transit companies to promote their compassionate ministries. We first posted panels with the North York Pregnancy Care Centre (now Pregnancy Care Centre) back in 2010. In the past five years there has been the occasional complaint but nothing of any consequence. In that same time the number of PCC locations in the GTA has increased to six, such is the demand for their services.

In mid-May, 2015 a certain Linda Star started an on-line petition in an attempt to get the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to remove the current PCC advertising panels. “Remove anti-choice ads on the TTC” reads the petition headline. What I found so amazing, and so disturbing, is that one individual can post a petition, the basis for which are lies and fabrication, and get 15,000 signatures in a matter of days. I guess this is one of the downsides of the social-media world in which we now live.

Below is the specific advertising panel used as the basis for the petition:

As I reviewed the written comments on the petition website I noted a number of recurring themes, so I copied and pasted a completely random selection of 1,090 comments into a spreadsheet and conducted some simple analysis based on key words.

Here are some conclusions I was able to draw:

The Pro-Choice community are not interested in choice – they are almost exclusively interested in access to abortion. Even though the co-sponsor of the bus ads is the JFJ Hope Centre adoption agency, apparently this is not a viable ‘choice’ for the pro-aborts. Of the 1,090 comments analyzed there were 18 references to adoption – all of them conveyed negatively:

“We don’t need Ads promoting Adoption on the TTC.”

“I think more woman should have abortions to help control the population. There are way to [sic] many people on this planet and I think if someone wants a kid they should adopt.”

“Pregnancy Care Centres are guilty of false advertising. They purport to provide information about options, but they only provide information about placing a baby for adoption, or raising it on your own. They do not provide information about the possibility of termination.”

The pro-abortionists are anti-religion or seemingly deny a moral compass. Of the 1,090 comments there were 164 direct references to religion, again all in the negative. 100% of the comments deny or exclude that the life of the child has any bearing on the conversation – all that matters is the woman’s right (choice) to kill her unborn child. The word choice was referenced to 412 times.

Reduced to an absolute, abortion is either moral or immoral. It is either right or wrong. Why would I suggest that the choice of abortion is a moral absolute? Simply put, the outcome of an abortion is an absolute – a dead human (there is no other specie it could be). One can argue the semantics of whether one calls this other living entity a child, a baby, a fetus or a zygote, but every living being has its origins at the moment of conception.

This bring us to question the definition and purpose of morality. One dictionary definition of morality is “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.”

Comment left on petition: “a mythical god should not be used to influence the right of personal choice.”

There are three possibilities with regard to (an individual’s) morality:

It’s personal. My definition of what is right and wrong are the attributes that determine what I consider to be moral or immoral. The only logical conclusion is anarchy – anything goes. My sense of right and wrong is as valid as any other individual’s and therefore I am accountable to no one.

It’s societal. A simple majority of 50 + 1 establishes the rules. As goes the crowd goes (even when led by an articulate but deceptive ideologue such as the likes of Hitler and any number of the current political leaders) so goes right and wrong. Unfortunately the silent (moral?) majority remains silent and the noisy few establish the rules.

It’s an absolute. If morality is an absolute then there must be a Moral Law Giver. This Moral Law is that which distinguishes those that are pro-life and those that are pro-death. And let me be very clear, to be pro-choice is to be pro-death because the only ‘choice’ that is in question is death.

This brings us back to the reasoning for my drawing the conclusion that most pro-death/choice individuals are atheist, it is simply because they deny the reality of any moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are completely contradictory to their whole worldview and belief systems.

Ignorance. The other conclusion I have come to is that most pro-choice supporters are woefully and tragically ignorant of the facts and what an abortion entails. In the United States (and one would assume that Canadian statistics are comparative) 36% of abortions are carried out when the baby is 9-weeks or older and requires the killing and dismemberment of the baby by one means or another.

Lies. It has been said the abortion industry could not exist were it not for lies.

“A friend of mine was intentionally lied to at one of these “Crisis Pregnancy Centres” when she was a vulnerable, scared teen-ager seeking information and options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. These ads, and the well-funded deceptive organizations behind them, must be exposed, and stopped. All women have the right to make health decisions based on their own personal, moral, religious, and material circumstances – and have equal access to unbiased, honest information and services. Support “Options for Sexual Health”!

This is the typical rhetoric from the pro-death/choice camp. Obviously, the most glaring lie is that PCC’s don’t present choices – this is exactly what they do – and they will encourage their clients to make ‘right choices’.

As for being ‘well-funded…organizations’… all abortions in Canada are 100% government funded. Abortion clinics are for the most part very profitable companies pulling in an average of $2-million per year each.

Pregnancy Care Centres on the other hand are all not-for-profit, charitable organizations mostly run and supported by volunteers. Being ‘well-funded’ is as far from the truth as one can imagine. One can view their financial statements of the Government CRA website.

“I find this false advertising offensive!” Of course, if this were false advertising one wouldn’t be allowed to post it on Canada’s transit systems. Typically it is statements such as these that are so patently false.

Below are the key words analyzed:

CHOICE/CHOICES	412
WOMEN	384
(ACCURATE) INFORMATION/INFORMED	353
ABORTION	178
DECIDE/DECISION	170
RELIGION/RELIGIOUS	164
FALSE	99
PROPAGANDA	96
(WOMAN’S) BODY	79
LAW/LEGAL	66
MISLEADING	55
ANTI-CHOICE	53
RIGHTS	39
PRO-CHOICE	23
GOD	17
LIES	16
MORAL/MORALITY	12
ANGRY	8
BIBLE	3

A Selection of comments posted on the petition:

“a public institution, in this case the TTC, should not be supporting a specific political viewpoint.”

“A publicly owned corporation like the TTC can not be allowed to propagate religiously inspired mis-information.”

“A safe abortion is a woman’s right in Canada and I oppose any organization that impedes a woman’s right to correct information and free choice. Please remove the offending adds.”

“A woman needs factual and unbiased opinion when facing such an important decision; this is NOT a religious issue, but a health issue. This organization’s position is the remove the constitutional right of women to make a well-informed decision.”

“A woman’s body is her own! SHE will decide what to do NOT anyone else!!”

“Abortion is a sin, but denial of choice is a greater, more venial sin!! If there was no sin in the world it would already be paradise.”

“Abortion is a legal medical procedure and a basic human right for women and the shaming of women choosing this option HAS TO STOP.”

“Advertising for places that lie to the public should not be allowed in Canada.”

“Anti-choice ads oppose public health policy and seriously endanger women’s psychological and physical health. It is scandalous that a public service like TTC would publicize such anti-health and anti-women advertisements. TTC must remove the advertisements immediately. Maybe TTC should also apologize to women and to public health authorities.”

“Anything using religion as a weapon or providing incorrect information to force people into life choices, shouldn’t be allowed.”

“As a Christian I am very opposed to the anti-choice groups presenting themselves as “the” Christian choice. It is not.”

“As a physician, I’ve long wanted these ads gone, and am glad to sign this. The centres advertise that they’re there to “provide options,” but they’re not – instead, they present the option *they* think you should take, which is completely inappropriate. Currently, women in Canada are *technically* entitled to “safe and affordable” abortions, however, in reality, that doesn’t happen – the wait-times in Kingston are ridiculous, such that I’ve had to send patients to Toronto; we can’t even get a timely ultrasound to know if they’re far enough along to terminate. On top of that, any woman who’s been unlucky enough to have to face an unwanted pregnancy, and who has chosen to terminate, will probably agree with me that abortions in Canada are done without adequate analgesia – in the US, you have to pay for your abortion, but at least you have the option of anaesthetic. In Canada, you get given a token amount of medication, and contrary to what abortion clinic websites say, women do *not* describe the procedure as “uncomfortable,” but rather as “very painful,” and I base this on having worked at a Toronto clinic for 3 years. A bit off-topic, but worth adding! By all means, make your own choice, should you become pregnant, but just as God doesn’t belong in the bedroom, neither does he belong in the doctor’s office. Signed!”

“as a woman, i have the choice to act on my own body. brainwashing is unacceptable”

“Because choice is paramount.”

WHY OVERTAXING THE RICH IS A BAD IDEA – A PARABLE

Leave a reply

I felt it was so important that people understand why a socially conservative approach to taxation is not only the fairest approach, but also the essential approach, that I am reproducing a feature article from the Globe and Mail by Tim Cestnick:

The nice thing about an election year that’s accompanied by federal budget surpluses is that it’s fertile ground for tax cuts – and both the Conservatives and Liberals have promised that tax savings are on the way. But who should really benefit from tax cuts? While it might not seem politically correct to suggest that the rich should get the lion’s share of tax breaks, let me share a story that I first shared many years ago that provides food for thought here.

The cost of dinner

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn’t share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

“You’re all very good customers,” the owner said, “so I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I’m going to charge you just $80 in total.” The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren’t paying anything for their meals anyway. They’ll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that’s fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person’s bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got one dollar out of the $20,” said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, “and he got $9!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too! It’s not fair that he got nine times more than me!” “That’s true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn’t faced before. They were $50 short.

The moral

There are a couple of lessons to be learned here. The first is an observation from my wife: If the 10 individuals had been women, they probably would have figured things out. But in all seriousness, I’m going to suggest that the approach taken by the restaurant owner in the story is exactly the right approach to divvying up tax cuts. It’s how our system should work. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the greatest relief from a tax cut, in absolute dollars.

The fact is, if you overtax the rich, they just might not show up for dinner next time. After all, there are plenty of good restaurants around the world.

This story is relevant today because both the Conservatives and the Liberals have proposed to cut taxes – in different ways. The Liberals have said that they would offer no tax cuts to the rich, but would instead increase the tax burden on the highest earners. The problem with this, of course, is that pushing any taxpayer’s marginal tax rate to 50 per cent or higher (which would be the case for many Canadians, particularly in provinces that also have taken steps to increase the marginal tax rate for the highest earners) will absolutely cause those folks to explore new ways to bring the tax burden down. And in the end, it may drive some to leave.

Tim Cestnick is managing director of Advanced Wealth Planning, Scotiabank Global Wealth Management, and founder of WaterStreet Family Offices.

GOD SEND ME A SIGN!

Leave a reply

How often have you seen someone walking around gazing at their smartphone and bumping into something? There are statistics that indicate that 25% of all car accidents are smartphone related. In London, England they are experimenting with wrapping lamp posts with foam pads to reduce the risk of injury.

From England’s Daily Mail newspaper: Research showed that Brick Lane in East London was the top spot for texting injuries… 68,000 such accidents last year… fractured skulls.

How often have you asked, “Please Lord send me a sign.” but never bothered to look up or look around? How much do we really miss out on what God is trying to tell us or teach us because we aimlessly focus our attention on meaningless chit-chat?

Thankfully, when it comes to all the Bus Stop Bible Study panels we post, we are able to rely on God stepping into the picture. We have received countless testimonies from people who have looked up, seen one of our panels, and God has spoken.

We once received a call from a woman who had just left Princess Margaret Hospital with a positive cancer diagnosis. Can you imagine the devastating impact at just having received that kind of news? Well, for this woman, God showed up. She got on a TTC bus, looked up, and God spoke directly to her as she read His Word. As soon as she got home she called our office to share her emotions; the devastating news of a positive diagnosis mixed with the joy of knowing that God cared about her so personally and in such an intimate way.

As we so often like to say, “At just the right time, just the right person will get on just the right bus, and a life is changed.”

Next time you want a sign from God, look up or look in your Bible.

ADVICE FROM AN OLD FARMER

Leave a reply

1. Forgive your enemies – it messes up their heads.

2. Life is simpler when you plow around the stump.

3. Keep skunks and bankers at a distance.

4. Bees can fly considerably faster than a tractor.

5. Your fences need to be horse-high, pig-tight and bull strong.

6. Do not correct somethin’ that you know is more riled up than you are.

7. Most of the stuff folks worry about aint gonna to happen anyway.

8. Don’t judge folks by their relatives.

9. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.

10. Don’t interfere with somethin’ that aint botherin’ you none.

11. Life is like a sandwich; birth as one slice, and death as the other. What you put in-between the slices is up to you.

12. Live a good life. Then when you get older you can think back and enjoy it a second time.

13. Sometimes you get, and sometimes you get got.

14. If you find yourself in a hole, the first thin’ to do is stop diggin’.

15. Good judgement comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

16. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

17. When drinkin’ outside on a hot day, always dip your canteen upstream from the herd.

18. Lettin’ the cat outa the bag is a whole lot easier than puttin’ it back in.

19. If you thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around.

20. Nothin’s worse than that moment durin’ an argument when you realize you’re wrong.

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S MOST FAMOUS QUOTE, "DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET."

Leave a reply

As I compose this blog, the image below has been shared [perpetuated] 612,134 times. Lies can take on a life of their own. I have no idea why someone would deliberately create an Meme like this except to satisfy their own egotistical pride.

A Facebook friend innocently reposted this Meme which prompted me to do a little research. I went to official Government websites to garner factual information…

Pay rates for Armed Forces can be found here. Assuming a 5-day week/52-week year, Armed Forces salaries start at $32,042 for a Second Lieutenant A and range up to $153,072 for a Lieutenant General. The highest paying job in the Armed Forces is a Brigadier General Medical or Dental Specialist who top out at $163,124. Note: Members of the Armed Forces receive a daily rate rather than a conventional salary.

MP Pensions: Amount of annual pension collected in 2012-13, and the number of parliamentarians (and their survivors and dependants) collecting it:

$90,000 and over — 89 former MPs and senators, one survivor.

$65,000 – $89,999 — 129 former MPs and senators, three survivors.

$40,000 – $64,999 — 180 former MPs and senators, 43 survivors.

$0 – $39,999 — 151 former MPs and senators, 126 survivors and dependants.

Harper’s total annual salary is $315,462, when you include his Prime Minister’s wage of $157,731 and equivalent basic allowance for members of Parliament. Currently, Prime Ministers who serve four years or longer receive two-thirds of their $157,731 in additional salary — or about $105,000 — in annual pension once they are no longer an MP or reach age 65, whichever comes later. That total is in addition to the pension paid to all members of Parliament who serve six years or longer.

The average combined monthly benefit from Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan is $11,300 per person, so a typical working couple can expect to get about $22,000 a year from the government. If you both worked and contributed to CPP your whole lives, you could get as much as $32,000 a year. This is on top of any private or public pension income.

So, where is the spiritual application in all of this you ask? Well, yesterday at church the speaker made reference to John 14:6. We can read it every Sunday as it spans the baptismal tank at the front of the church. Quoting Jesus it says, “I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE”.

As I once again meditated on these words I asked myself the question, “If these words are not true, then what?” Well, the opposite of the truth is a lie. In this instance it would have to read “I AM THE WRONG WAY, THE LIE AND THE DEATH” The truth in this instance applies to the world’s ways and to satan – even if he didn’t actually say them. So, here is a truthful meme you are free to share…

As an aside, one of the best places to validate outrageous internet claims and rumours is www.snopes.com

WEIGHING IN ON FERGUSON

Leave a reply

Jesus well known commendation, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” is an ideal we should all strive for. Matthew 5:44

But, and it’s a big but, God also gave us minds to use [He even promises to give us wisdom] and limbs to get us to the polling station.

That the African American community is [still] in an uproar over the Michael Brown affair, would infer that there is still a lingering sense of injustice. But I ask the question: why has the African American community done nothing to change their lot? Obviously there were problems long before the death of Michael Brown. It COSTS NOTHING to vote.

The following demographics are taken from Wikipedia:

As of the 2010 census, there were 21,203 people, 8,192 households, and 5,500 families residing in the city. The population density was 3,425.4 inhabitants per square mile (1,322.6/km2). There were 9,105 housing units at an average density of 1,470.9 per square mile (567.9/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 67.4% African American, 29.3% White, 0.5% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.4% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races. Hispanic and Latino of any race were 1.2% of the population.

The Mayor of Ferguson is directly elected for a three-year term. Voter turnout in the most recent mayoral election was approximately 12%. The Mayor ran unopposed. The Ferguson city council is composed of six members.

Why, I ask, have not the offended lot exercised their constitutional rights, to run for elected office** and to vote for those you wish to see serve/rule over them? With a two-thirds majority the African American community are [statistically] without excuse. They complain but choose, yes choose, not to do anything about it. Looting and burning is an exercise in criminality – not of civic responsibility. Using rope whips and overturning tables is OK though when, and only when, obvious wrongdoing is in process.

The old adage, as you sow [indifference] so shall you reap [oppression] seem most appropriate under the circumstances.

In the same way, I find it truly hypocritical of President Obama today to accuse the leadership/police of Ferguson City of being “oppressive and abusive” towards blacks when he does nothing to hold these oppressed and abused citizens to account for not exercising their civic duty. And, yes, it is a duty.

It will be interesting to see if anything changes in the next municipal election. Unfortunately, I am not too optimistic.

**While the Mayor may not have direct control over the Police Chief and his hires, he/she will certainly have sway over the City Manager who does.

THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG? CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

Leave a reply

If we read the biblical account it starts with the chicken, And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. Genesis 1:20-23

Every bird reproduced after its own kind, which is still true today. Only same kinds can interbreed.

When God creates, the matter doesn’t need any further explanation or dialogue, it simply ends there. God created the chicken [and birds, fish and reptiles] with the innate ability to reproduce through egg-bearing or laying. God designed and created a finished, closed system of reproduction with all necessary components in place.

It almost seems a copout to simply leave it there, but there it is. In math, we know indisputably that two plus two equals four. It’s a simple statement of fact. So it is with Creation… God created. It’s a simple statement of fact that needs no further embellishment. How He created no one knows. He just did.

From an evolutionary perspective, the question of the chicken or egg coming first is very much more complicated. As I scoured the internet I found many articles and commentaries with varied opinions, but, I could not find one, single article on how the first egg came to be.

The dilemma for evolutionists is that egg-laying is a very complicated and closed process.

1. First, you need a male and female chicken with functioning reproductive systems; the female chicken to produce the unfertilized ‘egg’ and the male chicken with the sperm necessary to fertilize the ‘egg’. This means that before the first egg ever appeared on the scene someone, or something must have considered the end result – the egg. Once the rooster deposits sperm in the hen, she keeps it in a little internal pouch. As a new egg passes by, still without a shell, it is fertilized by that sperm. This now fertilized ‘egg’ is the entity that will eventually be encapsulated in the outer shell.

2. Next you need an egg-producing system. A system that will envelop the fertilized egg, a single cell, in the yolk and sequentially wrap the yolk in a membrane. This is followed by the creation of the albumen, the ‘egg white’ that surrounds the yolk. In turn, the albumen is enveloped in a second membrane which is then enveloped by the shell, a mineralization and calcification process. The chalazae are the two opaque strands of egg white that keep the yolk suspended in the middle of the egg. Astoundingly, this whole process takes approximately 24-hours. The chicken lays the egg.

3. The complexity doesn’t stop there. The whole system needs to carry the highly complex DNA, not only encoded with all the information for the chicken to grow but also carries the process information, the blueprint, for the cycle to carry on infinitely from generation to generation.

4. During the course of the next 20-days an even more impressive process takes place as the young chicken is formed. Of course, the process includes a temperature control system (the brooding chicken), ventilation (porosity of the shell and membrane), etc.

5. Take any single element out of the process and you don’t have an egg or the life cycle it produces. The entire system must be in place from the very beginning for the very first egg to be produced. This limitation is known as irreducible complexity.

Evolutionists have long taken issue with the idea of irreducible complexity. In his 2008 book Only A Theory, biologist Kenneth R. Miller challenges the claim that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Miller observes that various subsets of the five components can be devised to form cooperative units, ones that have different functions from the mousetrap and so, in biological terms, could form functional spandrels before being adapted to the new function of catching mice. In an example taken from his high school experience, Miller recalls that one of his classmates struck upon the brilliant idea of using an old, broken mousetrap as a spitball catapult, and it worked brilliantly….It had worked perfectly as something other than a mousetrap….my rowdy friend had pulled a couple of parts –probably the hold-down bar and catch– off the trap to make it easier to conceal and more effective as a catapult…[leaving] the base, the spring, and the hammer. Not much of a mousetrap, but a helluva spitball launcher….I realized why [Behe’s] mousetrap analogy had bothered me. It was wrong. The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex after all.

Other systems identified by Miller that include mousetrap components include the following:

use the spitball launcher as a tie clip (same three-part system with different function)
remove the spring from the spitball launcher/tie clip to create a two-part key chain (base + hammer)
glue the spitball launcher/tie clip to a sheet of wood to create a clipboard (launcher + glue + wood)
remove the hold-down bar for use as a toothpick (single element system)

The point of the reduction is that – in biology – most or all of the components were already at hand, by the time it became necessary to build a mousetrap. As such, it required far fewer steps to develop a mousetrap than to design all the components from scratch.

Thus the development of the mousetrap, said to consist of five different parts which had no function on their own, has been reduced to one step: the assembly from parts that are already present, performing other functions.

The Intelligent Design argument focuses on the functionality to catch mice. It skips over the case that many, if not all, parts are already available in their own right, at the time that the need for a mousetrap arises. From Wikipedia.

The Achilles’ Heels of Keneth Miller’s argument, that the irreducibly complex mousetrap had been reduced to a “single step”, are twelve-fold:

The mousetrap needs a purpose to exist (to catch mice).
The mousetrap needs a design or blueprint [a very specific arrangement of all the parts] to function (see patent illustration above).
The mousetrap, to be a mousetrap, still requires all five components (eight if you include the three fasteners—and you can’t make it without them).
Specific design features (the patent design drawing notes 26 features)—all essential for operation.
All eight components must be simultaneously and locally available.
All eight components must themselves be of a specific design, dimension, suitable material, etc., e.g., the spring is made from a specialty formulated heat-treated steel, of a specific gauge, wound around a form with ends for creating a fulcrum and trimmed to an exact length to mate with the other components.
The mousetrap needs a specific process (sequence) for the assembly of the parts.
Someone, or something, is needed to assemble the parts (the Divine Watchmaker analogy[1]).
Someone, or something, needs the dexterity and ability to follow the assembly instructions as all the parts must be assembled in a specific order, starting with the base.
You need a bait to attract the mouse—the ninth component.
Someone is needed to set the trap and, finally,
A mouse is needed to activate the trap so the trap has a purpose and can carry out its function—the tenth component.

This is also where evolutionists (and atheists by default) run into the dilemma of concurrency. If you take an absolutely minimalist view of a mousetrap’s construction, the 26 design features, 8 component parts, and the first 10 of the listed criteria, all must be concurrently available (perfect timing). Not a single element can be missing and there still be a functioning mousetrap. When one considers the laws of very large numbers, the odds of a mousetrap coming into unguided existence (based on the absurd assumption that all the pre-designed parts are in fact immediately available) are greater than 1 in 2⁴⁴, one in almost eighteen trillion (1:17,592,186,044,416). As we know, that is not how things typically work!

For Miller to argue that the individual components can be reutilized for other purposes, or other gadgets can be assembled from the parts, is simply a red herring fallacy[2] of the worst kind.

Besides, chickens, eggs, and life are all exceedingly more complicated than a simple mousetrap.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

[2] A ‘red herring’ falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party’s position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.

TEN THINGS ATHEISTS GET WRONG

Leave a reply

1. Things don’t need to be scientifically proven or testable for us to know that they exist, e.g. beauty, joy, grief, etc. Why should the spiritual realm be any different?

2. Anything that is experiential or relational is unique to the individual, as are all relationships. Please don’t tell me it’s impossible to know God or that I am deluded.

3. God and gods² are not the same thing. Truth is singular in this instance.

4. Unicorns do exist. The narwhal is an obvious example. Single horned oryx and elands are not uncommon although the single horn is the result of genetic defect. The one-horned goat portrayed in Daniel 8:5 is figurative and, as often referenced in the Bible, the horn represents strength and power.

5. To say, “I don’t know and you don’t either” is simple arrogance.

6. All the atheists in the world combined know less about God than a single born-again Christian. An atheist’s ignorance of God proves nothing – only their ignorance.

7. In a court of law the first-hand testimony of three or four people is generally accepted; in which case the first-hand testimony of billions of born-again Christians should be more than adequate to acknowledge that is possible to have a personal, two-way relationship with God.

8. Anyone who claims to be an atheist (or agnostic) simply hasn’t taken up God’s offer. God knows from experience that miracles are not necessarily going to convince anyone, so He decided there is a better way, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” Jeremiah 29:13. A Christian knows this promise to be true.

9. Believing there is a God and relationally knowing God are two different things.

10. Faith is not blind. Blind faith and atheists are blind¹. God says in Jeremiah 5:21 “Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:…” or to put it in the vernacular credited to John Heywood, “There is none so blind as those who will not see.” For a Christian faith is experienced it two different ways; first the knowledge of the unseen (the faith that God exists even though I can’t [literally] see or tangibly touch Him) and second, the faith that God is absolutely faithful and trustworthy regardless of any circumstance he or she might find themselves in. The latter is the faith that ‘grows’ as we experience the faithfulness of God day-by-day.

¹To say that atheists are ‘blind’ is not intended as an offensive criticism, rather, a statement of fact. When it comes to denial of the existence of God, the apostle Paul teaches us, “Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away…” This veil, as solid, opaque and impenetrable as any castle door, is constructed entirely of pride and is reinforced with a portcullis made of thick iron bars of willful ignorance. Yet the wonder of it all is that this veil, this seemingly impenetrable door, can be demolished by a simple change of heart. How do I know this to be fact? I used to be an atheist on the other side of the door.

²Christians and Moslems both believe there is a God, but do they believe in the same God? No. Two people can say, “I believe there is a president of the United States.” Both would be stating a simple truth. If one says, “I believe Hilary Clinton is President” and the other says, “I believe Barak Obama is President” only one of these two statements can be true.

TFSA’s vs. THE RICH AND POOR

Leave a reply

It seems that everyone in the media is flapping their arms about a Broadbent Institute report that says the proposed doubling of TFSA [Tax Free Savings Accounts] is a terrible thing. Exactly what one would expect to hear from a socialist think-tank.

From a biblical perspective Jesus talked more about money than any other subject. Here are a few of the things He had to say:

On being extravagant: “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.” Mark 14:6-8

On our attitude to the poor: “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.” Mark 14:6-8

On making wise investments (at the very least): “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.” Matthew 25:27. The greater point in this parable was that you don’t get rich without taking some risks.

As I read many of the readers’ comments it is apparent that many have no idea of how the world actually turns, how taxes get paid, or how and why monies (wealth) needs to be invested.

Here are my Top-10 Thoughts on the comments I have been reading:

1. We need the very wealthy. Typically, these are the masters of invention and innovation and builders of business. These are the individuals whose businesses provide employment to a large portion (I did not say majority) of the masses. Their companies produce profits, which provide dividends for your RRSP’s and, yes, even your Canada Pension Plan. They are the big philanthropists – imagine where many of our benevolent institutions would be without them.

2. The wealthy for the most part are entitled to be wealthy. If they make a better widget and sell a whole lot more of them so why should they be penalized? They don’t owe me (or the Government) anything extra for being smart business people or shrewd investors.

3. The wealthy, the smart ones anyway, invest their wealth in other companies. An individual who simply keeps his millions or billions in a chequing account somewhere are not going to stay wealthy for very long. I say, follow their example. Invest. See Matthew 25.

4. Some of the commentators noted that the majority cannot afford to contribute monies into a TFSA. The median family income in Ontario (according to Stats Canada) is $74,890. We make it our choice to max out our TFSA’s. Which ‘majority’ are they talking about?

5. We choose to live a modest lifestyle now so that are able to save for a comfortable retirement. It is choice, rather than ability, that dictates who will save and how much. Read God’s advice in the Book of Proverbs.

6. The world (or the Government) doesn’t owe me anything other than the ability to work hard and be productive. I expect exactly the same of the Government as they invest my taxes.

7. I am disheartened by the number of independent contractors and businesses who will offer us a ‘deal for cash’. It ends up being a double whammy for the Government; they lose the HST I should have paid and the income tax the contractor should have paid. I can only imagine how much our taxes might be reduced if everyone paid their fair share and the Government(s) got rid of waste and increased their productivity simultaneously. All the talk about lost Government revenues by doubling TFSA allowances is but a pin-prick by comparison.

8. TFSA’s aren’t limited to meagre bank-rate interest. In the past year we have seen annualized growth of 7% and this in a relatively low-risk investment.

9. In the same manner that it pays to save – it pays to tithe (give to the work of building up God’s Kingdom). I save a full third of my taxes on the donated amount, it makes me feel good to see my monies bring a smile to a child’s face and then, the icing on the cake, God says He will bless me for doing so!

10. Finally, to quote Jesus on making wise investments, “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.”