Scientific Miracles and Circular Reasoning

Most people would think that a marble statue could not wave at them when they pass by. If one did wave it would be seen by most people as either a trick or a miracle. Here is how Richard Dawkins sees such an event:

"...if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen."

In fairness to Mr. Dawkins I should say that this type of reasoning is not entirely the basis for his beliefs in evolution but it does reveal an interesting mind set among many scientists. The words, "it could happen" or similar phrases are intermingled throughout the theory of evolution and materialistic hypotheses ending with life. Could the statue wave at us? The answer is no. It is impossible. If it did happen it would be a clear miracle. Normal people, whether they believe in miracles or not, understand that. Using the mind set of people like Richard Dawkins it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is impossible to prove any miracle has ever happened. Science fiction can be entertaining but it certainly should not be the basis for teaching truth.

We are now so filled with science fiction that we would not recognize a miracle if we saw one. There is always a "could have happened" explanation that we havenít quite thought of. I think that we should separate the could-haves from scientific facts. If we did that then materialistic evolution would collapse under its own weight.

Chemicals necessary for the operation and the assembly of life cannot be formed into the information based machinery of life without intelligent manipulation of molecules. Information necessary for the origin of life cannot be produced without intelligent input. To propose that either scenario is possible is to propose a miracle with odds that are similar to the chance that a marble statue will wave at us and wink without intelligent intervention. True, "it could happen," but so could the moon be made of green cheese. Ironically, that familiar saying has been disproved but I suppose it is still possible if you are a scientist with a vivid imagination.

Circular reasoning has gotten a bad rap in one sense and that is in the search for the unknowable. I did not say the unknown but the unknowable. Things that will forever remain a mystery cannot be discerned with our own reasoning ability. Of course we cannot always tell what must remain an everlasting mystery until we search them out with the aid of logic and evidence. The use of logic and evidence is therefore absolutely essential if we are to search out present mysteries. Circular reasoning then has no place in science. That is the realm of faith or the philosopher. We can reasonably conclude then that the search for reality in past ages must proceed from the basis of sound reasoning and intelligent fact finding and not by what is called circular reasoning. Here is an example of what I am talking about when I use the term:

"We assume that life evolved by natural means. Facts and evidence do not necessarily support our assumption but because we do not have all of the evidence we will assume that our original assumption is true."

Some have called this type of thinking blind faith. Is that not exactly what it is? Why do evolutionists mock people who believe in intelligent design? Who really is substituting faith for fact? Here is another illogical statement:

"You are suggesting the same old "God in the gaps" argument which is simply an attempt to put God in the places where our knowledge is still lacking. Our gaps are relatively minor and we keep proving more and more that God is not needed at all. Eventually we will fill most if not all of the gaps and your God will be irrelevant."

Now letís word the argument so that we can discern what it means:

"We have two huge gaps in our argument that cannot be spanned. These gaps require a miracle so that our theory will make sense. We donít believe in miracles so we are just waiting for our continued research to produce one. In the mean time we insist on the right to teach your kids that miracles are irrational and they should really believe in us, the true miracle workers."

Frankly I do not trust evolutionary scientists anymore than I do most lawyers. Both groups of people have what seems like an inherent tendency to change the truth into a lie by manipulating words and constantly redefining them. They have a mind set that presupposes the answer before they ask the question. This is simply dishonest and is the exact opposite of true science. Accusing creationists of doing the same thing does not justify their own unscientific position. That is called the attack and evade tactic in debate. Accuse your opponent and see if you can get the audience to laugh at him loud enough and perhaps you can direct their attention away from your own flawed position.

The present state of evolutionary science is similar to a church with mutually supportive members worshiping the same god. Science has been stultified by a haughty attitude of intolerance, and we are all supposed to pretend that it isnít so. Fact that does not bow to the omniscient god of presumption is rejected out of hand. The bearer of fact is excluded from the clique unless his facts undergo the review of the popes and cardinals who have set themselves up as the ultimate tribunal of sound doctrine.

Has anyone noticed when they see the ubiquitous words "evolution did it" littered throughout scientific papers and news articles that there are often no facts to back up that assertion? A unique fish is found with a little fishing pole on its head that dangles bait in front of its intended next meal and "evolution did it!" How exactly do you know? What possible good is it to a fish to have a nub growing out of his head? Yet evolution says that natural selection builds on improvements. Where exactly is the step by step improvement here? It exists only in the mind of the scientist telling the story. The statement, "evolution did it" is simply a wild guess.

From almost any angle you look at it, life is a miracle. When we consider the complexity we are awed by the machine that works and regulates itself. When we further consider that the machine is compressed into a tiny dot and recreates itself countless times we begin to reach the incredible stage. When we understand that the instructions in this machine are written as we might write the detailed instructions necessary to build and regulate the subway system and all of the necessary support systems of New York City then we are left with a profound mystery.

Our reason tells us that such a system could not have evolved by chance and a process that selects gradual improvements. No one in their right mind would assume that the first two rails fell into a hole that was caused by some type of natural disaster that coincided with a natural disaster that formed the steel that coincided with another natural occurrence that molded the steel into two perfect rails that had the ability within themselves to form other rails that would eventually form themselves into curves and would eventually branch off into a spike factory that makes spikes that are automatically nailed into wood ties that were formed perfectly by another natural occurrence that cut down the trees and milled them and cut them into the exact lengths and then delivered them as needed to the construction site that was supervised by no one.

Only a fool would believe that while all of that was going on an electric power plant was forming itself out of dirt and chemicals that would learn from no one how to manufacture electricity in precise amounts and deliver it at the precise times necessary to power the machines that would drive the spikes into the ties and run the steel mills that were supervised by no one. We would call the men in white coats if someone seriously proposed that all of these events came together at the same time and the same place with an inherent ability to join themselves with each other while at the same time connecting to the plumbing system that is joining pipes together with precision and connecting to a water source that nature provided to the pumps that just happened to be prepared for that purpose and at the exact time necessary to receive the water and pump it at the exact right temperature to cool the machines that were making the steel and at the same time cooling itself so that the unseen customers could get a cold drink of water from a machine that just so happened to be available just as the pipe reached it with a valve conveniently attached that would stop the flow of water so that it wouldnít run all over the floor and short out the tracts that were now being electrified so that the trains would be powered when they finished forming themselves to fit perfectly on the tracks with the seats properly placed on each side of the isle.

What science fiction writer would come up with such a story? That story would not even make a good cartoon. Even children would not be fooled with anything so ridiculous. Of course I have not even presented a portion of one percent of the problems that would need to be solved in order to construct the New York subway system. We didnít even consider the intricacies of the steel mills themselves and the trucks that carry the finished products and the bulldozers and cranes and tunneling equipment, etc. etc. What is more, the system in just one human cell is more complicated and intricate than our analogy. For instance just the instructions contained in the microscopic DNA in one human cell is several feet long! More information reduced to code than is contained in multi volume sets of encyclopedias. And much of this information is interpreted in several different ways and at different times, depending on the job description of each cell. The whole thing is on autopilot and is shrunk to the size of a dot and reproduces and repairs itself as well. Dawkinsí says that we should not look at it this way but we should take it one step at a time while understanding that "natural selection" and "mutations" design the system from very humble beginnings.

This is not sound logic. We started out with one steel rail. If we started out with one molecule of iron would our story be more credible? How about one seed that grows into a tree? Does that help us? How about one amino acid? How about twenty of them? How about one universe or one pool of water or one volcano or one bolt of lightning or one ray of ultraviolet light?

How humble should we get before our little story becomes reasonable? How about if we start with one humble person? Now we can build the subway system. Is that conclusion not inescapable? Doesnít there have to be intelligent intervention? Isnít it a logical necessity? If all of the building and activity that I described happened without the people, wouldnít that be called a miracle?

Just for fun letís pretend that this natural selection thing is able to perform miracles. In which direction will this self perpetuating blind, mute, deaf and mindless thing head? Will it get better because of mutations? For those who havenít studied much on this subject I should point out that a mutation is a mistake. It may take place when a cell reproduces the information contained within and passes it to the next cell when it divides. Now letís consider the first mistake. Suppose that we, through blind chance, come up with the genetic code for the word, "Make." Now we have the first mutation which changes that word to Moke. Or how about cake? Maybe the cell will decide to bake a cake instead of worrying about all of the complications of making sense.

Anyway, keep adding mistakes to this so called genetic code that evolved from nothing. To save time I will tell you what you will end up with regardless of natural selection or any other natural action. You will end up with confusion which gives no instructive information because no one knows how to use it or decode it or arrange it in a way that makes sense to the various parts of the cell that must read and interpret it in order to build not one but thousands of machines that are exactly placed and coordinated with the overall machinery of the cell. Of course this problem is all hypothetical anyway because the cell cannot exist without information and the information cannot exist without the cell. The circle cannot be broken (if I can quote a line from an old hymn). The entire theory of materialistic evolution is based upon a foundation of illogical circular reasoning. It ignores the circle of life that is dependent on its own machinery to make the parts necessary to assemble itself to begin with. This theoretical beginning of life is called abiogenesis. We will explore it in the next chapter.

© 2003 by Raymond F. Hendrix. All rights reserved.