Not many people stop to consider logic these days. Logic, if/then. That is, if “x” is, then “y” will follow. And that is true always. So, it is logical.
This will be true always if it is logical. In true logic it is. But so much of what we hear and learn today does not follow this rule.
Science is an area where logic should reign supreme. But, does it? In modern science, it seems that consensus carries more weight than logic. This is evident in many areas of scientific study. Most people are aware of what is called “climate change”. Logic is never invoked in talking about the climate. It is always the “consensus” and never the facts. It used to be that science was determined by empirical facts, not consensus. But, today, because of reigning paradigms, facts sometimes must be ignored.
Though climate change is the most notable right now, there is one that is more foundational. You are more familiar with it than you may think. It is the consensus of evolution. Does anyone question evolution today? There are a few. But the establishment scientific community is shrouded in the mantle of evolution. It is true that not all sciences have any connection with evolution. But an overwhelming percentage of those who call themselves scientists believe in evolution.
Now, if an overwhelming percentage (over 90%) of scientists believe it, how many laymen believe in it? Fortunately, not nearly that many. Why is that? It is probably that they have not been indoctrinated by the hierarchical catechism of the university elite.
The roots of illogic
From where did we get the foundation for such illogical concepts?
Illogical concepts have been around for almost as long as mankind. But one of the cornerstone pieces was Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. He published that work in 1859. He even admitted that some of what he proposed was illogical and easily disproved. This subtle admission did not stop those who wanted to believe from peddling this falsehood.
When first published, the cell was thought to be no more than a glob of gelatin. It did not seem that much of a leap from the inanimate to the animate. Even with that simple of a leap, it was only a few years before Pasteur proved the impossibility of life coming from non-life. Because some still wanted to believe, the belief persisted. Even though it was illogical, it persisted. In spite of scientific facts, they wanted to believe life could come from non-life.
Fast forward to 2020. Science has taught us so much about life that it is mind-boggling. The living cell which used to be thought just a glob of gelatin is now known to be a complex factory. When I say, “a complex factory”, I mean “complex”. There are so many processes going on in a single living cell that it is hard to conceive. If we were to expand it to a people working factory it would cover the area of the state of Rhode Island. The production that is carried on would be non-stop day and night for as long as the cell lives.
The information stored in that single living cell is almost unimaginable. Some have speculated that it would fill encyclopedic volumes enough to stretch to the moon and back. Even today, they are discovering more and more information contained in the living cell.
If the seeming simple cell imagined by Darwin could not bridge the gap from inanimate to animate, what about this library of specific information?
The information contained in the living cell is far beyond the biggest computers we have today. How was this information programmed into the first cell? Information must be logical or it is not information. Is information real if it cannot be transmitted to something or someone who understands it? For information to be useful it must have a transmitter and a receiver. Each must have the program with all the information and how to utilize that information.
How did Darwin’s cell get to this point? Can undirected processes program such a complex machine and then another to accept its information? The answer seems logical to an educated critical thinker. No, it could not do it.
So, we are already seeing that teaching evolution is not a logical thing to do. But, it is still being taught as fact.
More to consider
Back in the mid 20th century DNA was discovered. This is the “computer hard drive” of the living cell. It contains all the information necessary for the cell to carry on living.
Evolutionary scientists thought that they had found the means by which evolution could be proved. Beginning with a simple cell and given enough time, life could evolve to what we have today.
To allow for the time they thought was necessary, they invented ways of aging the universe. Through manipulating findings of different phenomenon they got the age to about 14 billion years. There is no way to imagine a billion years, so don’t try. By making it 14 billion years, it seems amply long to allow for life to evolve.
But as information about life grew, it seemed that even this was not enough time. The ingredients and processes entailed in protein manufacture was far more complicated than thought. Logically speaking, the time to build one protein for life was prohibitive. It would take more than a thousand times the supposed age of the universe. It takes over 400 proteins for the simplest living cell to carry on life. Is it logical that such a thing could happen?
One more nail
DNA was supposed to be the tool by which all life could evolve. It would gradually grow more and more complex as information increased through mutations.
Unfortunately, living things did not get the memo. As knowledge increased, scientists discovered a funny thing about mutations. They could not find any mutations that added information to the genome. If living things were to grow more complex they must add information to the DNA.
The funny thing about mutations is there are none that add information. All mutations are either neutral or diminutive. Mutations occur in each successive generation. The net outcome is a diminishing of the information in the genome. In other words, the life form is de-evolving. It is moving in the direction of extinction. Now, I ask you, is evolution logical?
If we use the logical formula of “If/Then”, we must confirm that evolution is illogical.
If it is illogical, why is it taught as fact by so-called scientists?
Let’s be logical
It is time to be logical.
Why is evolution still taught? The answer. Because human beings are in rebellion against their Creator. Elite professors and leaders want to rule over others. By promoting a philosophy that makes human beings their own god, they do away with the true Creator. Or so they think.
Consider the Biblical account of creation. When you look at real science and compare it to the Biblical account it is logical. The account of the Bible does not contradict known scientific laws. Evolution is in opposition to several of the know laws of science. The “If/Then” foundation of logic is upheld by the Bible but contradicted by evolution.
It’s time to be logical. Think critically and be logical. Do not take someone’s word about evolution just because they are a “scientist”. Evolutionists have given scientist a bad name. It is time to call them on the carpet. It is time to expose them for the liars that they are.
To be fair, many of them have been duped by the people who taught them. If all you were ever taught was that the earth was flat, you might believe it so. But, if someone taught you the earth was round and gave proof, who would you believe?
Learn to be logical and then apply the “If/Then” approach to your conclusions.
Creation is logical
If you study creation you will find that it is logical. You will not need to make up stories or fairy tales to make it fit the science. It is the foundation of true science.
God bless you as you study the life and creation that surrounds you.