A fundamental assumption of secular science is uniformitarianism, i.e., the expectation that the way things work at one point in time will be the same at another point. However, I notice that scientists only apply it when it serves their purposes, and ignore it when it works against them.
The main example that comes to mind is the supposed spontaneous beginning of life. If a random collection of chemicals can spontaneously become capable of self-replication, why can those same chemicals not do so repeatedly? That is, if life arose spontaneously at one place and one point in time, why did it never again do so at another place at another time? Shouldn't it be a continuous process, with new cells popping up every epoch?
If human sapience is the result of evolutionary pressures, have those pressures now ceased? Logically, that must be so, if sapience never developed again. And why just in a particular line of primates? Do those evolutionary pressures not apply to felines or canines or reptiles? In fact, that last creates a real problem for evolution, to my mind. If birds are the remnants of the class of dinosaurs known as raptors, as is the dominant theory, then their advanced forms have been around millions of years longer than have the higher mammals. Why did sapience never develop an ornithoid version?
Here is the issue: the secularist must find a naturalist alternative to Deity. Since that is impossible, he blanks out the holes in his logic and proclaims victory. It reminds me of the little boy playing pirate who vigorously insists that his stick is actually a sabre!
No comments:
Post a Comment