Static About Static

If all the hoopla about evolution and atheistic science is a source of constant irritation, so is the insistence that living thing must have always been the way we see them today. Has the Creator stopped creating? Will He ever stop creating? Doesn’t every newly divided bacterium constitute a new life?

A designer with the unlimited power to make things happen can certainly do as He pleases with his creations. He can keep a design unchanged as long as he pleases and sees fit, or modify and retool His creatures at any time needed in any way He chooses. What if He decides to do a biospheric “reset” by means of a global catastrophy and flood? In a pinch He could easily reengineer all living things and select only those needed to “replenish” the earth for preservation during the global purge of the worldwide ecosystem.

The ecosystem is totally plastic to an engineer of this sort. Even massive beasts like dinosaurs exist at the complete discretion of such a creator. When they have served their purpose, they can be destroyed or allowed to die out. Enough of this “competition for food sources” or “environmental pressures” naturalistic dribble. The biosphere(all of life on earth) would implode in a microsecond if left to it’s own devices.

This sort of designer could create a healthy living hungry T-Rex in your backyard during your family cookout if should so desire. He could turn off the immune systems of all humans at any moment and we would cease to exist on this planet. The truth is, His grace is shown to us everywhere and in everything we see and experience.

Wayne Hollyoak

Making Predictions Based on Intelligent Design

What are the hallmarks of a good design? Balance, efficiency, endurance, economy, etc are a few qualities you might expect. There is a subtle, but real interelationship among all species on earth. You could say that the clam was designed with the panda in mind. The ecosystem is a clean, mean, running machine.

The closer we look at the ecosystem, the more we learn about what really good design IS. It’s all operating at the highest engineering standards. There has been no expense spared. The species are designed without exception with complete command of the medium. Living things handle energy transfer and work efficiency as a complete tour de force! A human being can run 26 miles on a few thousand calories. Loose very little as heat and actually improve the conditioning of his body in the process.

An expected result of intelligent design is a variety of unique applications of the same basic systems. An intelligent designer will come up with enduring systems. The more successful the systems are and the wider the range of applications, the more intelligent the designer must be.

An intelligent design will challange our most brilliant minds in their attempts at unravelling how that design works. It has taken the collective minds of mankind thousands of years just to crack the genetic code itself. Which is just the basic information storage and retrieval system of the cell.

A mindless designer would stumble and fumble his way along with comical, outlandish Red and Green ‘esque or “Ruge Goldberg” kinds of results. If he could come up with anything at all, it would be a miracle.

An intelligent designer would monitor and maintain the ecosystem he has engineered. He could use his vast understanding of the biosphere and make tweaks to the information as needed. Genetic changes wouldn’t be accidental or random, but deliberate and well thought out. He would have complete freedom to tweak the systems on the fly.

If the designer stands outside the system we exist in, the “universe”, he could easily make all the changes he wants without human perception. But Wayne, aren’t you suggesting theistic evolution? Not at all! This sort of designer has no need for “evolution”. Everything he does is decisive and planned. No effort need be spent on failing attempts.

Wayne Hollyoak

Born to be Wild

This is the first in a series of posts concerning the major problems facing the theory of evolution. Any one of these in themselves should kill the theory. But, since evolution has taken on a religious status, to question it within the ranks has become tantamount to blasphemy or treason.

Anyway, there is a concept in genetics known as, “reversion to wild-type”. Anyone who has ever attempted to breed plants, cattle, dogs, cats etc. quickly becomes aware of the importance of maintaining a somewhat pure line. Otherwise, the Angus will start to be less Angus and more run of the mill in just a few generations.

Feral dogs don’t seem to care about pedigrees when they begin to breed in the wild. Very quickly in just a few generations the litters will loose many of the characteristics that were so carefully chosen by their human breeders. The australian “Dingo” is very likely the end result of “reversion to wild-type” for a variety of domesticated breeds that have been feral for a few hundred years. How close the Dingo is to the original pre-domestication dog type is hard to guess. But, there’s no doubt that the Dingo is closer than any other dog we can point to today.

Evolution places “natural breeding” solely in the hands of nature itself. Men, for thousands of years, have worked diligently to create very unique lines of horses, cats, dogs, corn, radishes, beans, fruit flies, etc. Each carefully maintained breed will loose most all of their unique characteristics within just a few generations if left to their own devices because of the “reversion to wild-type” effect.

Typically, breeders capitalize on “mutant” traits. These are genetic errors that can sometimes occur naturally. If a mutant individual has certain characteristics that the breeder likes, that individual will be bred in such a way that the trait will be preserved. By doing this using a succession of various mutant traits a new and interesting type of animal or plant can be created.

The corn that we eat today is only remotely similar to the maize that it has been selectively bred from over hundreds of years. But, if you were to let corn grow in the wild, in much less time, it would become very “maize-like” again. Each species has it’s own genome. A stable set of genes that give it the characteristics needed to thrive in it’s natural environment. Each has a genetic equilibrium that actively prevents mutant individuals from making changes that stick.

Evolution requires that this “reversion to wild-type” rule be broken over and over in every imaginable way. Mutant traits become the rule, not the exception in every species. It relies on what I would call, “super mutants”. Mutations that break the reversion to wild-type pattern that for all we can tell is universal. Sure it’s possible that occasionally a mutant gene will slip in and not cause a species much trouble, but as for mutants that actually benefit a species in their wild habitat. This you must accept on a faith basis.

Wayne Hollyoak

Super Mutants, Genetic Tweaking and Dynamic Engineering

The concept of Intelligent Design was one of the great assumptions of the fathers of science. It was that is, until Charles Darwin made his great discovery of the adaptability of living things in answer to environmental changes. Intelligent Design would have probably remained one of the pilars of our understanding of the natural world if Darwin had left his fanciful creation story out of it. He figured that if small changes could happen to species as they adapt over many generations to new environments, why couldn’t these changes eventually result in completely different creatures in the course of time.

Pretty soon a whole new creation story emerged that had all living things on earth owing it’s ancestory to a simple single celled organism like a yeast or bacterium. The idea was that nature has all the tools and ability needed to create itself. Today this creation story is know by the term “evolution”.

Like the flat-earth notion of ancient times, evolution was born out of ignorance of many more recent developments in man’s understanding of how matter functions(physics), how living things thrive and reproduce and how they store and manage information that directs their development, regulates their life systems, shapes behavior, etc.

But, like any creation story, it has it’s own religious baggage. As a natural creation story, it places nature itself as the creator of all life including ourselves. Evolution is a deeply religious faith which i prefer to name, “evolutionism”. As with any strongly held faith, those that believe in it are confident that it is a “fact”. For nearly 30 years i, too was strong believer in evolutionism.

Today, evolutionism is becoming one of the world “great religions” that has developed under the radar scope as a “scientific theory”. It has infected every branch of modern science and has popularized an antichristian/antisemetic movement under the guise of “atheism” and “protectors of science education”. But, their real aim is to maintain and enforce the endoctrination of “evolution science” as the only creation story worthy of the classroom.

Maybe you are convinced that “evolution” is not a religion at all and that everything “science” knows about living things supports it. So, that you don’t see it as something questionable, to you it’s just reality. Actually, there is a wealth of knowledge that has emerged since Darwin’s time that paints an entirely different picture. In the next few weeks i will be explaining how evolutionism does genetics dirty. And how modern science has ignored certain important principles of information system dynamics.

Wayne Hollyoak