Read an Excerpt
When Will We Admit the Obvious Truth?
Without seeming to belittle our efforts, the fact is that the size of the cosmos is so far beyond our wildest imagination that our "space program" is like an ant climbing to the tip-top of a blade of grass. It yells down to the other ants standing below and admiring this great achievement, "I’m exploring the world!" It hasn’t even begun to explore the lawn, much less the world. As great as our exploits have been in walking on the moon and sending robots to other planets in our solar system, they are far, far less in proportion to the cosmos than an ant’s conquest of a blade of grass would be in proportion to exploring the world. This reality is difficult to understand, but it should become clear in the following pages.
The uncomfortable truth is that much time, effort, money, and lives could be saved if we would face the reality of our severe limitations. Our achievements in exploring our solar system have been noteworthy, have greatly increased our knowledge, and have brought many scientific benefits. But to imagine that we can effectively to any purpose send manned spacecraft beyond those limits is to engage in costly self-delusion.
Yet, from the President on down, we persist in this vain ambition.
The Impossible Dream Lives On
On November 30, 2006, Cambridge University mathematics professor, Stephen Hawking, was honored with the British Royal Society’s highest award for scientific achievement. First awarded in 1731, recipients have included Darwin, Einstein, and Pasteur. Lord Rees, the society’s president, said, "Stephen Hawking has contributed as much as anyone since Einstein to our understanding of gravity. This medal is a fitting recognition of an astonishing research career spanning more than 40 years." As a further honor, British astronaut Piers Sellers carried Hawkins medal on his trip in July 2006 to the international space station. Said Sellers,
Stephen Hawking is a definitive hero to all of us involved in exploring the Cosmos. It was an honor…to fly his medal into space. We think that this is particularly appropriate as Stephen has dedicated his life to thinking about the larger universe.
In a BBC interview, Hawking said that his next ambition "is to go into space." More recently, he expressed that desire again. He believes that populating planets scattered throughout space could be the key to human survival. One can only wonder why there should be any concern at all for the survival of man or any other species. What does it matter if, as we are told by the atheists and evolutionists who are popularly looked to as speaking for "science" today, we are simply the accidental product of a Big Bang plus chance plus billions of years of something called "natural selection" and evolution that has supposedly created every living thing? The cosmos doesn’t care, so why should we?
Yet the desire for self preservation persists--and not as a blind instinct in man, but a rational purpose that places inestimable value on human life. Why? Science has no answer to that question. Much less can it deal with the ethical dilemma created by the fact that out of such concern came eugenics: the desire not just to preserve but to improve the human race--at the expense of those members considered expendable. As J.C. Sanford points out:
Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species and the Survival of Favored Races, introduced the new idea that strong and continuous selection ("survival of the fittest") might halt this perceived degenerative trend [in the human species]. Darwin repeatedly pointed to human efforts in animal and plant breeding as a model for such man-directed selection.
In his book, The Descent of Man, Darwin...contended that there is a need for superior races (i.e., the white race) to replace the "inferior races." This ushered in the modern era of racism, which came to a head in Hitler’s Germany.
Before World War II, many nations, including America, had government-directed eugenics programs [which] included forced sterilization of the "unfit," and aggressive promotion of abortion/fertility-control for the underclasses. Ever since the time of Darwin, essentially all of his followers have been eugenicists at heart, and have advocated the genetic improvement of the human race.
When I was an evolutionist, I also was, at heart, a eugenicist. The philosophers and scientists who created the modern "synthetic theory" of evolution were uniformly eugenicists. However, after the horrors of WWII, essentially all open discussions of eugenics were quietly put aside.
It is difficult to imagine how evolutionists can justify anyone’s concern for the survival, much less planned "improvement" of the human race by eugenics programs. After all, aren’t all living things merely lumps of a peculiar form of the same matter the universe itself is made of and holds in such contempt that it consumes it as fuel to keep the stars burning? Won’t it all sink into oblivion eventually according to the second law of thermodynamics with not even a surviving memory? Then why should we, who will be gone in a mere 70, 80, 90, or perhaps even 100 plus years--why should we care and plan for future equally temporary generations?
Why should anyone care who or what lives or dies? Yet that apprehension persists not just for oneself but for others, and most irrationally, for "endangered species" that natural selection would exterminate if we did not interfere--and even for the environment itself. Could natural selection have created this ethical anxiety that is clearly peculiar to the human species?
Not according to Richard Dawkins: "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." He’s right. Isn’t a loving concern good? No. Not according to Dawkins, which he makes abundantly clear--leaving us with the unsolved mystery of why we feel this way, when we shouldn’t if we are the product of evolution. Then why might we "wish to believe otherwise," which Dawkins cannot deny is the case? That "wish" may be a good indication that the theory of evolution isn’t just morally bankrupt, but dead wrong.
Can’t Evolutionists Trust "Natural Selection"?
Why can’t we just trust the future of all living things into the all-knowing hands of "the selfish gene" that Dawkins says is our creator? If natural selection made us what we are today, surely it will protect us to whatever extent it thinks necessary. If billions die in the process of the next upward move to a higher species, so what? Isn’t that how evolution works? Yet here we are, worried about endangered species and our own survival and trying to "help" nature do its job. And natural selection implanted this concern? We will deal with this in more depth when we come to "Morals, Ethics, Truth, etc." in Chapter Eight.
Isn’t it the height of presumption for us humans to imagine that we know better than the omnipotent evolutionary forces that supposedly created us? Our meddling might set back the evolutionary process millions of years. Shame on us for interfering! Wouldn’t it be dangerous for humans, recent arrivals on the evolutionary scene, to act as self-appointed guardians of this actual process? Such a desire and the capacity to interfere are either the product of natural selection and thus legitimate but neither right nor wrong--or are sufficient proof that evolution is the biggest scam ever foisted on the human race.
Be that as it may, Hawking seems genuinely concerned that humans could be wiped out as a species unless we speed up the space exploration process. He told BBC that "humans will have to colonize planets in far-flung solar systems if the race is to survive." In his opinion, "The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet. Sooner or later, disasters such as asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe."
Our future? He is asking this present generation to sacrifice its time, money, effort and pleasure to invest in the survival of hypothetical generations so far in the future that they may never exist. Could such incredible philanthropy be the result of unthinking, unfeeling evolutionary forces? Why should we care, anyway, when it all began with a Big Bang, human life is merely an accident, and the energy that supposedly spawned us couldn’t care less?
Atheism and evolution certainly give us no basis for concern about the survival of our species any more than for that of a virus or fungus. Richard Dawkins declares very seriously: "There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection." No evolutionist could argue with this statement--which in itself must be the product of billions of years of evolution culminating in the human brain. Is this rational?
Hawking thinks that since we must reach distant star systems far beyond our own solar system, and since the propellants we currently use can only get us there in thousands or even millions of years, we will have to use matter/antimatter annihilation propulsion described in the Star Trek sci-fi series. That advancement would supposedly allow us to travel at or near the speed of light. Our only hope for the survival of our species is to develop such a system to propel our spacecraft. As we shall see, however, that would still be much too slow to take us very far into the cosmos. It’s size and the distances across space from one star to another are far beyond our wildest imagination! The cold facts reveal this entire space exploration dream to be no more than a fantasy.
The Forgotten (and Rejected) Creator
If one imagines that there is intelligent life "out there somewhere" for man to contact, then the question must be faced of how such life (there or here on Earth) could originate. The prevailing opinion in the academic and scientific world is that it happened by chance through evolutionary processes. We will prove that such an "accident" is utterly impossible. Tragically, unlike the brilliant founders of science (most of whom were theists) upon whose genius science was built and still relies, modern man has forgotten his Creator. Refusing to acknowledge as even a scientific possibility the God who offers instantaneous access to Him in prayer, modern science persists in attempting to find other intelligent creatures somewhere in the impossibly vast universe that it won’t admit God made. This tragedy was expressed succinctly by a scientist:
Radio telescopes, linked with computers, simultaneously search millions of radio frequencies for a nonrandom, non-natural, extraterrestrial signal—any short sequence of information. Yet the long sequence of information in the DNA of every living thing is a signal from an intelligence—a vast intelligence—a Creator. But if those searching for extraterrestrial life ever accepted the evidence for a Creator, the evolutionary basis for their search would disappear.
In Chapter Three, we’ll consider how the cosmos, which certainly hasn’t been here forever, began. For the moment, however, we can acknowledge the fact that if there is any life at all, intelligent or not, anywhere in the universe, it must have begun after the so-called Big Bang. We are not endorsing this popular theory which is opposed by increasing numbers of top scientists, but mention it as the only belief concerning "origins" that is given any credence in America’s public schools. Though one has the freedom to mention God and creation in universities (but generally not in lower levels), to do so is likely to draw the scorn of professors and students alike.
Yet those who promote the Big Bang theory fail to note that if the universe did begin in this manner it would have been sterilized a billion times over, making it utterly impossible for life ever to exist thereafter anywhere in the cosmos. The Law of Biogenesis, established by experiment and accepted by all scientists, declares that life only comes from life--it cannot arise from dead matter. Therefore, the very fact that life exists upon earth is in itself proof that the universe, like all of the life within it, did not come into existence with a sudden burst of mindless energy, but by a supernatural act of creation. Atheists have succeeded in convincing most people that science can explain everything without God. That popular belief is far from the truth. Speaking out of the humility and reality of his own experience as the founder and director for many years of America’s space program, Wernher von Braun declared:
For me the idea of creation is inconceivable without God. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it.... Speaking for myself, I can only say that the grandeur of the cosmos serves to confirm my belief in the certainty of a Creator.
The issue is rather simple. There are only two possibilities: life either began by chance through purely random processes that have never been observed and that are certainly not at work today—or it was created by God. All must agree, whether atheists or not, evolutionists or creationists, that present forms of life could not have come from physical life that existed before the "Big Bang" even in seed form. (Any explanation of where that energy came from, and why it didn’t explode before, is beyond the reach of science.) The incredible heat from the alleged "Big Bang" unquestionably would have destroyed any life that might have existed previously and any hope of any ever existing within the universe, no matter how many thousands, millions, or billions of years thereafter.
On the one hand, the Law of Biogenesis is an accepted scientific fact. On the other hand, the atheistic establishment that aggressively has laid claim to representing "science" and pretty much molds public opinion cannot fully admit it because God is undeniably part of that package. Atheists would dearly love to find an escape from this law but there is none. So they claim that there must be at least one exception; spontaneous generation must have occurred at least once in order to get life started on earth. In our pursuit of truth, let’s consider this law carefully in the next chapter and let the chips fall where they may.