Category Archives: The Logic

When the Wheels Come Off the Wagon

I suppose no one should be surprised that in a world that has accepted homosexuality and transgenderism there would also be a place for whales evolving from small land animals. It fits right in.whale evolution video image

Here is a great little video which not only demonstrates some less than inspiring animation but also how obvious it is that the wheels have come off the wagon with evolution. Hey, there’s an idea! Let’s see a video with the wheels coming off of a wagon as it goes barreling down the trail. That would be a more accurate representation of the value of evolution.

Evolutionists unite! So much to be proud of with this video!

Tagged ,

Bears Evolving into Whales!

An interesting story surrounds the following passage from the first edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Here’s the passage:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the wGrade 4 Unit 4 Lesson 1 Whale Evolution-1ater. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.[1]

My first interest in this passage is the sheer silliness of the idea that whales evolved from land mammals. It is, I think, one of the most outlandish suggestions (I’m being kind here) made by scientists today, up there with the multiverse and Panspermia. Dr. Carl Werner[2] lists no less than nine parts of the small land mammal (he uses the so-called Pachyaena a so-called hyena-like creature as his subject) that would have to change by chance mutations in order for the hyena to become a whale.

  1. The hyena would have to develop a dorsal fin
  2. The bony tail of the hyena would have to change into a cartilaginous fluke
  3. The hyena’s teeth would have to develop into a huge baleen filter
  4. The hyena’s hair would have to nearly disappear and be replaced by blubber for insulation through chance mutations in the DNA
  5. The nostrils would have to move from the tip of the hyena’s nose to the top of the whale’s head, disconnect from the mouth passage, and form a strong muscular flap to close the blowhole
  6. The hyena’s front legs would have to change into pectoral fins
  7. The hyena’s body would have to increase in size from 150 pounds to 400,000 pounds
  8. The hyena’s external ears would have to disappear and then develop to compensate for high-pressure diving to 1,640 feet deep
  9. The hyena’s back legs would have to disappear

According to Werner, the odds of this happening would be 1 in 364 followed by 1,625 zeros or less likely than throwing 2,000 dice at one time and all of them coming up “3.”[3]

Darwin got a lot of flak for the above passage. It threatened to derail the success of his theory. One story has it that Professor Richard Owen prevailed upon Darwin to leave out the passage about bears evolving into whales.[4] But James T. Costa tells a different story. Here’s his account:

The bear and whale comparison became a sore point. When Darwin told Richard Owen that he dropped the example for the next Origin edition, Owen replied, “Oh have you, well I was more struck with this than any other passage; you little know of the remarkable & essential relationship between bears & whales.” Darwin swallowed the line and restored the passage; far from believing any such relationship, however, Own scathingly wrote in his review of the Origin: “We look . . . in vain for any instance of hypothetical transmutation in Lamarck so gross as the one above cited” (Owen 1860, p.518). In the remaining editions of the Origin, Darwin simply inserted a qualifier: “. . . catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water” (emphasis mine.)[5]

However, the addition of the word almost has not been the only adjustment in this section of Darwin’s Origin. The 1909 Edition, published by P. F. Collier & Son of New York, merely says, “In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water.” Gone is the last part of the paragraph where Darwin imagines that, with no competition for bugs, a “race of bears . . . more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths” might eventually produce a creature “as monstrous as a whale.”

I would like to tell you that scientists have seen the folly in imagining such a thing. Werner reports that, “Modern evolution scientists do not believe that whales evolved from a black bear by acquired characteristics and natural selection as Charles Darwin once speculated.”[6] Whew! Thank goodness, right? No. Werner goes on to explain, “They now theorize that whales evolved from a land animal through a complicated series of chance mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.”[7] Complicated indeed!



[1] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: Classic Illustrated Edition (Kindle Locations 2375-2379). Heritage Illustrated Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, (Green Forest AR: New Leaf Press, 2014), 40-54.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See Werner.

[5] James T. Costa, The Annotated Origin: A Facsimile of the First Edition of On the Origin of Species, (London: Harvard University Press, 2011), 184.

[6] Werner, 42.

[7] Ibid.

Tagged , , ,

Too Many Turtles!

One of the common arguments against the idea of a First Cause of the universe or a Prime Mover is the counter argument, “What caused the First Cause? This comeback is a little like the person who, not paying attention to the details of a story being told to him by his friend, asks questions of his friend at the end of the story that belie the fact that he was not paying attention. If we are postulating a First Cause, Prime Mover, asking what caused the First Cause is nonsensical. 5_08_turtlesThe very definition of an un-caused, First Cause is that there is no prior cause responsible for it. If you want to posit that you believe in an infinite regressive chain of causes (multiverse, aliens from another universe, etc.) then please admit that you believe that the universe and or all of its prequels are infinite. Then, please recognize (say it out loud, perhaps) that you are embracing the turtle theory. Which is recounted nicely by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

Those who reject the First Cause argument are guilty of believing in an endless supply of turtles. In this way they can push back the question of the origins of the universe and the design question.

Tagged , , , , ,

Encouraged by Atheism?

Somehow, the mass of men have allowed themselves to become pre-conditioned to assume that philosophers and atheists are super intelligent. We expect to read their writings and be blown away by irrefutable logic and insights concerning, among other things, the existence of God. Many of these so-called intellects shroud themselves in complex sentences, four-dollar words, insults, and a fiery indignation creating the illusion that they know something we don’t and that they know it so deeply that they are passionate about it. It is equivalent to the fallacy that equates truth with sincerity.

I admit that I like to read atheist arguments, mainly because I have yet to encounter any claim refuting the existence of God that was able to hold any water. Scratch the surface just a little bit and you discover angry apologists, many of whom are intellectually dishonest.

Bertrand RussellBertrand Russell

Consider the noted twentieth century philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell who, in his lecture-turned-essay, “Why I am Not a Christian,” addressed the “first cause argument” for the existence of God. He wrote:

I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question ‘Who made God?’” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument for the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument . . . There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.

Now, certainly one of the most well-known expressions of the First Cause argument is Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In Volume I, Question 2, Article 3 of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas gave five arguments for the existence of God: 1) the argument from motion, 2) the nature of the efficient cause, 3) the argument from possibility and necessity, 4) the gradation of things, and 5) the governance of the world (design). His argument from motion goes like this:sandro-botticelli-st-thomas-aquinas

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

I particularly like Aquinas’ discussion of possibility and necessity:

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt,[1] and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything [emphasis mine] is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go onto infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The principle behind the First Cause argument is simple: everything that is has to have been caused by something prior to it. However, we cannot rightly conceive of an infinite regression of cause and effect. Therefore, there must be a necessary “cause,” or a Prime Mover. That is, there must be some source, outside of the universe—outside of whatever is outside of the universe—that can be said to have been the initial cause of all that is. This requires that we must at least allow for the possibility of a necessary first cause that exists outside of our own understanding and scientific insights. There would be no reason to posit such a necessary force or being except that we do see the universe, we do know it had to have a beginning, we cannot credibly posit matter that exists eternally, and even if we choose to imagine a universe of universes, or a so-called “multiverse,” we only succeed in pushing the question of a Prime Mover further out. One may imagine as many aliens and universes as one likes: everything has to have a beginning.

The Rule Breaker

Now, that last statement must immediately be refuted in the case of one “thing” or being that must have been eternally present in order to be in position to cause the first things that was caused. At this realization we encounter the need for a leap of faith. That is, in order to allow for all that we see we must allow for a primary, necessary being or force that can be said to be the source of it all. This entity or force breaks the mold and does not conform to the rules that apply to everything else.

For the moment, I am content to bring the discussion just that far. If one wants to imagine some kind of necessary force other than God, particularly the Judeo-Christian God, one should have at it. However, my requirement is that one should have at it honestly and logically.

It is too bad, of course, that Russell was willing to give up his belief in God (if that’s what it was) at so young an age for such fragile reasoning as that which came through a book from someone else’s father. At first blush, one might think there is a debate to be had, for the argument that even God would have to have a beginning is a good first try at arguing against the First Cause concept. However, when Russell says, “There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all,” he speaks foolishness. Did Russell really think that it was possible that “the world” had always existed, not having a beginning?

One of the ways we know that we cannot posit an eternal matter is that we observe that everything decays. We have not encountered anything that can be said not to be in a state of decay. Therefore, we must imagine that matter is not eternal, has not the power to exist eternally, and therefore must have had its beginning at some point in time, just as it will have its ending.

If there is a God, He must, by definition, exist outside of all other things. The very definition of God is that He must be, if He exists, Self-existent and eternal. One must allow for God to be considered differently than that which He has made. Therefore, there is reason to assert that all created things would have a beginning but that He who created all things would not. Decrying the impoverished imagination of the hoi polloi, Russell used his to imagine an eternal universe but he could not allow, at least in this treatment, for even a reasoned consideration of the existence of God. Maybe the kind of imagination needed is the kind Richard Dawkins demonstrated in his interview with Ben Stein.

Stein: What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Evolution?

Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed the form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe but that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.[2]

So, Dawkins can imagine aliens seeding life on this planet but he cannot imagine God: not just the Christian or Jewish God, but any god. Taken to its illogical conclusions, Dawkins believes against Aquinas that we can “go on to infinity” with a perpetual line of causes and movers, never ever getting back to a beginning! Aquinas says Dawkins is absurd.

Now, some godless scholar will no doubt reply, “Aquinas was an unenlightened scholar from the age of scholasticism. We have moved beyond such proofs.” My answer to this is that the philosophes of the enlightenment have gave us nothing worthwhile to replace Aquinas. Nor have Darwinians given us anything but dogs evolving into whales. Atheists have only given us Dawkins and Hitchens spewing out anger, bitterness, and diatribe against God in order to discount any voice that might want to tell them how to live.

Atheists demand proof of God’s existence and then expect the masses to give up their belief in God over such unscientific, intelligence insulting assertions of a world with no beginning or of aliens seeding life on our planet.

A Final Word about John Mill’s Influence on RussellJohn_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company,_c1870

At the outset of this article, I quoted Russell’s quote of John Stuart Mill and his father, James Mill, himself a historian, economist, political theorist, and philosopher. He was also an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland. Here is a reminder of Russell’s statement:

I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question ‘Who made God?’” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument for the First Cause.

Here is the actual quote from Mill’s Autobiography:

It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father’s ideas of duty, to allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings respecting religion: and he impressed upon me from the first, that the manner in which the world came into existence was a subject on which nothing was known: that the question, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, because we have no experience or authentic information from which to answer it; and that any answer only throws the difficulty a step further back, since the question immediately presents itself, “Who made God?”[3]

Russell’s inaccurate quotation makes the elder Mill’s position much meaner and seem more premeditated, seemingly grouping him in with atheism. However, according to Mill, his father was greatly influenced by and spoke with respect for a book called Butler’s Analogy, which “kept him, as he said, for some considerable time, a believer in the divine authority of Christianity.”

Mill’s father wrestled with questions of creation and the inspiration of scripture. Mill’s father struggled with the presence of evil in the world, hell, and the creed of Christianity which he considered to be evil, thus he struggled with institutional Christianity.[4]  Ultimately, he found no “halting place in Deism [and] remained in a state of perplexity, until, doubtless after many struggles, he yielded to the conviction, that, concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known. This is the only correct statement of his opinion; for dogmatic atheism he looked upon as absurd; as most of those, whom the world has considered Atheists, have always done.”

Finally, Mill’s testimony above was that his father was committed to making sure that his son shared his own convictions in these matters. Interestingly, Mill characterized himself as “one who has not thrown off religious belief, but never had it: I grew up in a negative state with regard to it.”[5]


[1] Here, Aquinas is referring to the tendency of all things to suffer entropy, degradation, or to fall into disorder.

[2] Dialogue taken from the documentary on Intelligent Design, “Expelled,” featuring Ben Stein (begin listening at 1:16:24).

[3] John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, Seventh Edition, (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1882), 43.

[4] Ibid., 38-42.

[5] Ibid., 43.

Tagged , , , , ,

Silly Statement of the Week

An atheist on Facebook made the following statement in a reply to sometyhing I said after viewing the PBS video of Stephen Hawking’s Machine of Life. The video displays a sort of cause and effect process showing how one movement sets in motion a chain reaction. After watching the video, I wrote:

“Only demonstrates again the importance of a Prime Mover and the obviousness of design”

The atheist responder replied, in part:

“Before concluding design, you would need to be able to provide valid, objective evidence that such a designer actually existed.”mt rushmore

This is a curious statement. Let’s think about such a statement. I can only conclude that something has been designed if I first prove that there is a designer. Hmm. That’s like saying you can’t conclude that the yellow, curved object in your hand, which can be pealed, eaten, tested in the lab, etc., is the byproduct of a tree or a plant until I first find the tree or the plant, identify it as the source, and then I can posit that the object in my hand is not an illusion, or a football, or an accident, or a hairbrush, but is, in fact, a piece of fruit. Ludicrous.

On the contrary, the value of design and the observation process which can help determine if a particular object has been intentionally designed and produced is that it is valuable as a piece of evidence that can help lead one to the source. The designed object testifies to the existence of the designer! If someone stumbles across Mt. Rushmore, having never heard of it before, they will at once say, “Wow! What amazing human effort.” They won’t say, “Hmm…I can’t be sure this is not a natural rock formation until I can identify the specific artists who created it. Till then, I have to assume that these rocks that look like the faces of four American Presidents happened naturally.”

The atheist’s argument displays one more time the pseudo-science that has arisen for the sole purpose of supporting the atheist perspective. Atheist or not, the argument from design does not have to lead a person to an acknowledgement of the Judeo-Christian God. We are all free to posit any strange theory we feel we must in order to keep pushing God out of the picture–including multiverses and whales that evolve from Hyenas. But it is utter foolishness to refuse to recognize design simply because one has not located the designer.


Tagged , , ,

Ellen DeGeneres: Caitlyn Jenner Gay Marriage Stance Is ‘Confusing’

Ok, so let me get this straight: the Olympian Gold Medalist Bruce Jenner, who changed his name to Caitlyn in order to express himself as a woman is being criticized by the lesbian Ellen DeGeneres because he is a traditionalist when it comes to marriage and seems to have a problem with gay marriage. Hmm…Jenner’s stance is “confusing” you say. Hmm . . . (guy has a male body but expresses himself as a woman to another woman who is married to a woman and thinks Jenner is hung up on the word marriage . . .) Yeah, I’d say there’s some confusion going on here.


Source: Ellen DeGeneres: Caitlyn Jenner Gay Marriage Stance Is ‘Confusing’

Tagged , , ,

Jimmy Carter: ‘Jesus would approve gay marriage’ | TheHill

Jimmy Carter, who most people would say is the only President in modern times in the running with Obama for “Worst President” just proved one more time why he is a contender!

Jimmy Carter: ‘Jesus would approve gay marriage’ | TheHill.

Obama, Syrian Rebels, And 500 Billion Dollars

I have never been opposed to America’s involvement  in other countries when it made sense for her to do so, but spending 500 billion dollars to arm and train Syrian rebels is just another stupid idea. We get lured in by atrocities. Yes. It’s bad. But arming and training Syrian rebels so that they can “take their future into their own hands” is the same as training and arming a future combatant against America, or Israel. Read this quote from a Washington Post article:

While we continue to believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the United States should not put American troops into combat in Syria, this request marks another step toward helping the Syrian people defend themselves against [Assad] regime attacks, push back against the growing number of extremists . . . who find safe-haven in the chaos, and take their future into their own hands by enhancing security and stability at local levels,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.

This seems to me to be a twentieth century approach to a twenty-first century situation. Do you have an opinion?

Tagged , , ,

What Would Make You Believe? | the superstitious naked ape

I found this article very interesting. It was written, of course, by an atheist but should be of great interest to thinking Christians. So, I would ask Christians, what brought you to belief in Christ? Is it reasonable to demand that God reveal Himself on our terms? Is there something to the Augustinian precept of “believing that we may understand”? Read the article and respond here to my questions or begin a dialogue with atheist John Zande.


What Would Make You Believe? | the superstitious naked ape.


Tagged , , , ,