Posts Tagged ‘materialism’

The Top 12 Science Stories of 2010 For Christians/Creationists

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 07 2011

by Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

2010 came in like a lion with a major earthquake in Chile and went out with snow like lamb’s wool covering many parts of the United States. So much for global warming?

More on that later.

There really is no way to quantitatively select the top 10 or 12 science stories that were the most important to the cause of belief in God, special creation and Biblical truths in 2010. This is quite obviously a subjective exercise. No real attempt has been made to here to prioritize among these choices either. If last years list is any indication, we’ll get some argument and some suggestions-some of which will be printable.

At s8int.com, we believe and fully accept the Biblical account for creation. That faith and belief helps us form our world view and our view of science. We’ve always assumed that true, honest and objective science would support the Biblical account and God’s place in the universe—and it has.

The world’s preeminent Atheist, Richard Dawkins, made the following observation in his book; The Blind Watchmaker’

“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

It’s been a tough decade for Darwinism, though and 2010 was no different. It continues to be the case that the more science learns about the universe and our place in it the less tenable is the Darwinist faith. Despite the hard work and dedication of Darwinists, a new Gallup poll (reported in December of 2010) shows that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the view that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process.”

Photo:Stein interviews Dawkins in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed!”

Things have gotten so bad for Darwinists that Richard Dawkins now says that he could accept the notion that “super-intelligent aliens” are responsible for creating life on earth and that this would explain why life seems designed. (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , 2008

Dawkins doesn’t even seem to realize that this illogical and contradictory position puts him squarely back in the pre-Darwin; anything or anyone but God camp! The very position he described as being “logically sound” but “intellectually unsatisfying”!

The Joy of Ignorance? What group has tried to turn their own ignorance into a virtue as aggressively as the Darwinists? Remember “vestigial organs”? Basically science was ignorant about the function of certain “organs” and so they declared them functionless, leftovers from the evolutionary process.

They asserted that God wouldn’t have created useless organs and that ergo; there was no God!

Unfortunately for this theory, science could not maintain its ignorance for long; the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from approximately 180 in 1890 to arguably, none in 1999. (Bergman, Jerry, “Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?”, Journal of Creation 14(2):95–98, August 2000)

Dawkins and other atheists also trumpeted “Junk DNA” as proof that there was no God. God they reasoned, would not have created useless, functionless, “junk” DNA (non-coding DNA ) that took up so much of the space in the genome. They fairly chortled about it. Dawkins said;

“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)

Time and additional scientific knowledge and understanding vindicated God as the creator and showed that Dawkins and other evolution believing critics were simply speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. It turns out, once again that science’s (and Dawkin’s) own lack of knowledge was the problem here, not God’s creative abilities:

” “The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of “junk DNA” flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion “letters” of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” (Washington Post, July 14, 2007 Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
)

Finally, Darwin admitted that it was difficult to conceive of how an organ as complicated as they eye could have evolved (although he believed it did). Michael Behe, an architect of “intelligent design” deemed the eye irreducibly complex; in other words it had to be the result of a deliberate design rather than evolution because it would have been useless without all of its parts being fully functional.

Evolutionists have deemed the eye to be one of evolutions biggest mistakes because it appears to them to be wired backwards. In 2010 it became clear once again that ignorance on the part of atheists and Darwinists was the problem. A study showed that the design of the eye leads to better vision and that in fact its design should be copied in order to make better optical machines.

This is a principle Christians can depend on; if evolutionists think that something God created is imperfect;- simply wait until their ignorance dissipates. “Let God be true and every man a liar!” Romans 3:4

We combed through; Discovery News, CreationEvolutionHeadlines, NewScientist, s8int.com/WordPress and other sources to compile news stories of interest. Here’s our list of the top science stories of 2010 for Christians/creationists.


1)Universal Health Scare: Study Locates Conscious Minds Locked in Appearance of “Vegetative State And; Atheist Doctors More Likely to Kill You!

“Distressing” is not an adequate word to describe a study by Cambridge University neuroscientist Adrian M. Owen that proves that many people in supposedly vegetative states actually are quite aware of what is happening around them and have opinions and views about it all. There may be thousands of such people in the U.S. alone.

The implications are hard to bear and yet demand action. Can you imagine anything much worse than being completely unable to communicate with others and yet affected by them? Anyone who has suffered an injury that impairs even a small function knows how frustrating that can be. But this is almost like being buried alive. With this difference: the patient is aware of people’s conversations and can, at least in his mind, respond. But no one in the presence of such a person–until now–has found a way to “listen” and therefore to converse.

This study adds force to the anti-euthanasia arguments made in cases like that of Terri Schiavo. It also calls in the name of human compassion for greater efforts to engage such conscious minds encased in unresponsive bodies and to give their lives some scope for vigorous interaction. It also calls for greater scientific and technological efforts to break the physical chains binding such people.

A colleague of Dr. Owens sees a number of immediate practical uses of the new way of communicating with conscious, but immobilized persons. “This technique could be used to address important clinical questions. For example, patients who are aware, but cannot move or speak, could be asked if they are feeling any pain, allowing doctors to decide when painkillers should be administered.”

But another urgent need is to find ways to communicate more directly than is possible now. In their study, the Cambridge team used MRI technology, which is expensive and obviously hard to arrange on any regular basis. Posted by Bruce Chapman on February 3, 2010 4:03 PM Discovery News

Atheist Doctors More Likely to End Your Life–ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010)

Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.


And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows. The findings are based on a postal survey of more than 8500 UK doctors, spanning a wide range of specialties, which was designed to see what influence religious belief — or lack of it — had on end of life care…. ScienceDaily


2)Darwinian Reversals

“There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs”, according to Wikipedia and other Darwinist sources. This idea is a new tenet of the Darwinist faith and the truth is the acceptance of the idea has never really been as much of a consensus as advertized. As we’ve noted many times, “Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian and evolutionist himself proclaimed that “a cadre of “zealots” were trying to “actively promulgate the theropod dinosaur origin of birds theory in concert with Nature and National Geo”… Quote Story

An article published in 2009 in Medical Hypotheses noted: Some “Non-Avian Feathered Dinosaurs May Have Been Birds.” Spend a few minutes working out that headline’s meaning. In an article published in PhysOrg, a different group of evolutionists at OSU made a complete reversal of the Darwinist tenet by claiming that the evidence showed that dinosaurs evolved from birds!” Commentary by: CreationEvolutionHeadlines

“Feb 9, 2010 — Birds evolved from dinosaurs, we are often told. That’s backwards, reply some scientists at Oregon State University. According to PhysOrg, the recently-published bi-plane model study of Microraptor gui (01/29/2010) demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs did not sprout wings and fly; instead, they became flightless after their bird ancestors came down from the trees.

Their response demonstrates how the same evidence can be spun different ways. They are adamant about it: “The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs,” John Ruben of OSU said, “but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.” He’s glad to see a breakthrough from the conventional wisdom. “This issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that.” CreationEvolutionHeadlines

From Soup to Nuts! One of the oldest tenets of Darwinism is that life began in a “primordial soup”. However, “the ‘soup’ theory has been overturned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.” ScienceDaily

The truth is that absent an acceptance of the Genesis account science has no idea how dead chemicals became living. There are literally hundreds of competing ”scientific” theories regarding life’s origin, as we covered in our story:. “When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

Neanderthal Now One of Us. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon have long been enlisted by the Darwinists as a caveman/primitive man proof of the truth of the evolution of man from lower forms. They were successful enough that even some Christians invented “pre-Adamic” man to try to help the Bible out.

As late as last year some scientists were still claiming that man and Neanderthal never interbred; that they couldn’t speak, that they had no language, argued over whether they buried their dead, claimed that they only ate meat because they weren’t smart enough to cook vegetables, etc. etc. (Cro-Magnon was rehabilitated some years ago).

Now, it’s all changed. It’s been reversed…

An analysis of “Neanderthal” DNA indicated that their DNA matched “modern” man’s DNA to 99.97%. Since the analysis was only of 60% of the genome the actual match might be closer. That awaits further study. It’s worth noting that each of our own DNA is a match to our neighbor’s to 99.999%.

Scientists Lied and Real Neanderthals Died! Neanderthal DNA 99.97% Identical to that of Evolutionary Scientist’s!

Neanderthals Admired Beauty 01/10/2010
Jan 10, 2010 — This may be the last evidence needed to debunk the image of Neanderthals as dim-witted brutes: they wore make-up. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

    Humans and Neanderthals Are One 05/08/2010

“May 08, 2010 — If Neanderthals bred with modern humans, they are one and the same species. That must be the case according to the most widely-accepted definition of a species: those who can breed and produce fertile offspring. The news media are abuzz with Science magazine’s cover story this week, “The Neanderthal Genome.” Most anthropologists are now accepting the genetic evidence for human-Neanderthal mixing of DNA, and that there are remnants of the Neanderthal genome walking the earth in living human beings. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

Science Daily announced, “Neandertals ‘Hardly Differed at All’ from Modern Humans.”

Fossil Ida:

The last bit of dirt was kicked over Ida, the fossil that evolutionists claimed was going to change everything. ‘Missing Link’ Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)


3)Macro Evolution’s Evolving, Non-Evolving Problem The trade secret of paleontology might very well be the lack of transitional fossils..(Gould); but the Darwin family secret is the long list of supposedly millions of years old fossils which are indistigushable from their living counterparts. Two of those articles are linked here:

Pelican Fossil Poses Evolutionary Riddle; Why, They Haven’t Evolved, Not Even a Little

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider


4)
Evolutionists Blind, Ignorant, Criticism of the Design of the Eye Proves to be Short Sighted and Wrong. (Will Science Teachers Continue to Constrict Their Pupils with This Kind of Teaching?)

Dawkins is not great. First, as head atheist he jumped on the; vestigial organs prove there is no God train, only to see it derailed; then onto “junk DNA” and finally to the “backwards designed” eye.

A 2007 Article entitled” Evolution’s Greatest Mistakes” claimed that the eye was an example of “flawed evolution”.

“The most famous flaw is found in vertebrate eyes. Their light-sensing structure, the retina, is wired up back-to-front.) NewScientist

In May, commenting in an editorial about a 2007 German study that found that the eye is wired backwards, purposely –or at least to the benefit of the eye said:

“IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.”
NewScientist went on to note that creationists have defended the eye design by claiming that the backwards design actually enhances vision:

“…creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision.

“This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see “Optical fibre cells transform our weird, ‘backward’ retinas”). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.”

You have to love this defensive quote from NewScientist;

“The findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the study”.

According to the authors of the research paper, the findings of the study could lead to better designed optical equipment and cameras. So much for bad design.


5)Not A Grain of Truth to Science’s Claim That “Primitive Man” Domesticated Food Crops: Animals Refuse to eat Genetically Modified Foods..

It’s the belief of evolutionary scientists that all the domesticated grains that we eat; grains like rice, corn, oats, wheat and barley, were created by deliberate cultivation over hundreds or even thousands of years by our primitive ancestors. They would have needed the ability to work tirelessly and purposefully for a period of generations on crops that would have no food value for them until the projects were created; all eons before Gregor Mendel developed prinicples of genetic transmision of inherited traits.

This story is hard enough to believe but here’s another problem. If man genetically modified all the food crops we mentioned; why were cows and pigs eating them? And why do they have a problem with the New genetically modified foods? Isn’t the same agent, man responsible for the old GM crops as well as the new?

Clearly not, the crops we’ve known for thousands of years were created by God—not man. When Adam was punished he was told that he would have to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, he was meant to plant and harvest crops–the same crops that Cain brought as a failed offering to God.

Animals didn’t have a problem with the former, but the do have a problem with the latter. Article


6) Why Paleontology is Not “Science”; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!

In the course of a year’s time paleontologists made the bold statement that pterosaurs couldn’t fly; only to have another study claim that they were the greatest flyers ever!

Any discipline that claims two mutually exclusive things are both true in that short a period of time can’t be called a science. This is the stuff they want to teach your kids. Article


7)
Research Indicates Ancient Civilization Thrived Until Ocean Submerged It Beneath the Persian Gulf “About” 8 Thousand Years Ago: Do You Noah What That Reminds Us Of?

An ancient civilization the size of Great Britain was located under the Persian Gulf. The civilization was “drowned” thousands of years ago.


8) Science Daily Article: Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds.”

Unfortunately, we’re not smart enough to comment on this article. We didn’t understand it. It didn’t make any sense to us…. Article


9) Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected 04/05/2010 “April 05,

2010 — Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.

An air of daunting complexity haunts the article. The Human Genome Project was one of the great scientific investigations of the end of the 20th century. Some compared it to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. It used to be tedious, painstaking work to read the sequence of DNA letters.

Now, deciphering genomes is a matter of course. But with the rush of data coming from genomes of everything from yeast to Neanderthals, one thing has become clear: “as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude,” Hayden wrote.

…..Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription. “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.”

If it’s junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93% of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.

These realizations are dissipating some of the early naïveté of the Human Genome Project. Planners predicted we would “unravel the mysteries behind everything from evolution to disease origins.” Cures for cancer were envisioned. We would trace the path of evolution through the genetic code. That was so 1990s.

Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said, “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things – such as how a cell turns on and off – is incredibly naïve.” “ CreationEvolutionHeadlines


10) Evolution as “Scientific Literacy” Dropped by NSB; Sets Off Firestorm 04/11/2010
April 11, 2010 — Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals? What if you deny the universe began with an explosion? American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.

But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they don’t accurately reflect students’ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs. The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters.

Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reported on this issue in the April 9 issue of Science. He quoted Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) calling it “intellectual malpractice” to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution. “It downplays the controversy,” he said. Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State, conducted the survey until 2001. As the one who added the survey question in the first place, he thinks the current board is making a big mistake.

“If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, … how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?” he asked. Bhattacharjee said, “those struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.”

But the NSB defended its decision to drop the “value-charged” question on evolution as a misleading indicator:…… CreationEvolutionHeadlines


11) The Great Global Warming Collapse

“In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.” Globe and Mail


12)Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
Jan 15 2010
“Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing – an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David’s reign.
The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible’s Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

“It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research,” said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.” Article

Top 12 Science Stories for Creationists/Believers of 2009

When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 06 2010

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

“The origins of life on Earth bristle with puzzle and paradox. Which came first, the proteins of living cells or the genetic information that makes them? How could the metabolism of living things get started without an enclosing membrane to keep all the necessary chemicals together? But if life started inside a cell membrane, how did the necessary nutrients get in?

The questions may seem moot, since life did start somehow.” New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins…NYT June 15 2009 Article

How close are scientists to knowing the origin of life on earth … Oct 21, 1999 … www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-close-are… Article

In 1924, Oparin began publishing his ideas on how life may have evolved from a prebiotic soup ….… www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/…/slm/originday.htm -

From Soup to; “Nuts?!” New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of ‘Primordial Soup’ as the Origin of Life
S8int.com Article

Life could have evolved on Earth not once but twice.” BC Focus Magazine Video

Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth

ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2002) — “A totally new and highly controversial theory on the origin of life on earth, is set to cause a storm in the science world and has implications for the existence of life on other planets. Research* by Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators – small compartments in iron sulphide rocks. The new theory radically departs from existing perceptions of how life developed and it will be published in Philosophical Transactions B, a learned journal produced by the Royal Society”…Article Source

“Life May Have Evolved from Inanimate Matter, with associations among molecules becoming more and more complex. In this view, the force …” www.darwinspredictions.com/

“According to a new study, scientists found that life on earth went from single cells to blue whales and giant sequoias in 3.5 billion years in two distinct bursts. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This theory is against the preconceived notion of life slowly evolved from simple to complex multicelled organism. The analysis of the fossils showed that the study of the two sized jumps were from bacteria to eukaryotic cells and from unicellular to multicellular organism.” Article

“Mineral cells might have incubated first living things.John Whitfield

Life on Earth may have begun in rocks on the ocean floor. More than 4 billion years ago, tiny cavities in minerals may have served as the first cells, two biologists are proposing. Other researchers argue that the idea leaves many questions unanswered.

The key to the new theory is iron sulphide. Hot springs deposit a honeycomb of this mineral on the ocean floor, with pockets a few hundredths of a millimetre across. This would have been the ideal place for life to get going, say William Martin, of Heinrich-Heine University in Dusseldorf, Germany, and Michael Russell of the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, UK.

“There are lots of theories [of the origin of life] but ours is the first to start with the cell,” says Martin. Most scientists assume that self-replicating molecules or proteins came first. NatureNews Article

Methane-Belching Bugs Inspire a New Theory of the Origin of Life on Earth

Two laboratories at Penn State set out to show how an obscure undersea microbe metabolizes carbon monoxide into methane and vinegar. What they found was not merely a previously unknown biochemical process–their discovery also became the inspiration for a fundamental new theory of the origin of life on Earth, reconciling a long-contentious pair of prevailing theories. This new, “thermodynamic” theory of evolution improves upon both previous theories by proposing a central role for energy conservation during early evolution, based on a simple three-step biochemical mechanism. Article

Life Could Have Evolved in Armoured Clay Bubbles ….. arXiv:1011.4711 Article

Life Could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. … Wikipedia Article

Did Life Evolve in Ice? Funky properties of frozen water may have made life possible….. Discover February 2008 issue; published online February 1, 2008 Article

Evidence Mounts That Life May Have Begun In a Scalding Toxic Bath

Born in the fire Evidence mounts that life may have begun in a scalding toxic bath By David Chandler, Globe Staff, 9/12/2000 For humans, it’s about as … Newsgroup Article

Life May Have Begun In The Hot Or The Cold

Over 3000 million years ago, life may have begun in the sea as simple bacteria. As ancient time progressed, there slowly evolved a diversity of …Astrobiology Magazine, Moffet Field CA (SPX) Feb 26, 2008

Life May Have Begun in Upper Atmosphere An experiment that simulated chemical reactions in the atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan suggests that life could have begun in the sky. American Scientist, November 2010
Article

Life May Have Begun Deep Down Under the Ground and Then Only Later Evolved and Adapted To Cooler Surface Conditions On Earth. … Nov 16, 2009
earthsky.org/space/paul-davies-do-we-live-in-a-bio-friendly-universe Article

Could life have evolved in cometary nuclei? A. Bar-Nun, A. Lazcano-Araujo and J. Oró

On Earth it is believed that life originated or could have originated in caves or round Hydrothermal vents…. Wikiversity.org

Life on Earth could have grown from the broken remains of alien viruses–Alien “Zombies?” …. Article;Wired Science

Comets may have brought life to Earth: New study www.physorg.com/news203584634 Article

But life could have taken 7 billion years to develop, and still have left time to evolve to beings like us, who could ask about the origin of life. … hawking.org.uk

Researcher Says Life Evolved Between the Mica Sheets: …www.nsf.gov/news/news Article

A new model shows how primitive life could have evolved from simple amino acids in a “primordial soup” – news.softpedia.com

The deep sea vent theory for the origin of life on Earth might apply to ……
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/…/enceladus-f20080326.html Article

So the common ancestor of life could harness the natural proton … If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have …….www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/…/13228098-1.html Article

First Animals Evolved in Lakes, Not Oceans, Study Hints

Jul 28, 2009 … Earth’s first animals may have evolved in salty lakes, not oceans, … and its longevity may have helped animal life gain a foothold, Kennedy said. … Still, there could be other explanations for why older animal …news.nationalgeographic.com/…/090728-first-animals-evolution-lakes.html

Life May Have Evolved From Fresh Water? Carrine Blank, Ph.D., Washington University

Life may have evolved chemically, not biologically www.thaindian.com/…/life-may-have-evolved-chemically-not-biologically_ 1003221.html

Mars; Not Mars

–Or, more extraordinarily, it has been suggested that life may have evolved first on Mars and then come to Earth by the process of ballistic panspermia.7 …www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marslife.html

–Frozen Mars Likely Never Evolved Life
Jul 21, 2005 … This in turn suggests that Mars likely has not had conditions suitable for life to evolve, at least in the last 3.5 billion years. …www.sciscoop.com/2005-7-21-151739-652.html

–Life may have been seeded on Mars < ---from Earth. www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marslife.html

--Who knows, that an intelligent life may have evolved on Venus in distant past, even more ‘intelligent’ than us, who might have ruined the …www.chowk.com/articles/11545

What Dr. Seth Shostak is suggesting could come out of the pages of a science fiction novel. His idea is that intelligent life may have evolved into or created artificial intelligence.

These ‘robot’ forms of life may have different forms of communication and could be living in parts of the universe inhospitable to organic life forms like us. Dr. Seth Shostak, who is the Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute. Article

Diamonds may have been life’s best friend.

Billions of years ago, the surface of these gems may have provided just the right conditions to foster the chemical reactions believed to have given rise to life on Earth, researchers in Germany report. ScienceDaily (July 30, 2008)

Unique three-dimensional native structures of first biopolymers could have evolved as a side effect of nonspecific physicochemical factors acting at the prebiotic stage of evolution. Harvard university Jan 23 1996

New theory fills in the gap before Darwin
By Tim Friend, USA TODAY

“Forget what you learned in biology about the origin of life: that it began with a single mother of all cells and became increasingly complex. It was a simplistic notion anyway.

A new theory by leading evolutionary microbiologist Carl Woese, which may revolutionize notions on the origin of life, suggests that life really began with at least three primitive cell-like structures engaged in a promiscuous gene-swapping free-for-all more than 3 billion years ago.” USA Today Article

Video: Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 28 2010

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Darwin and time forgot the co-existence of man and dinosaurs but it is reflected in the art of ancient peoples. The variety and repetitive discoveries of known dinosaur and pterosaur species offer proof that Darwinism is a lie; all species of animals on this planet have lived concurrently with man.

The proof of this assertion is explored in eight episodes. The Series; The Lands That time Forgot”.
(Note this is not a real series….Its a s8int.com conceit)

And God created the great dragons…

And man memorialized these creatures; great and small; in exquisite detail. That is why these examinations will never be popular. everything that we’ve been told is true by materialistic sources–is untrue–and that is impossible in that world view.

Link to Video; Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Note: No actual, horses, dogs or dinosaurs were hurt or harmed in the making of this movie….

Evolutionist’s Refuse to Accept the Sole of Man; These are the Soles that Try Men’s Times (200,000,000 Years+); The Sole of Man After Death; Fossilized Shoe Sole from Rock Supposedly Hundreds of Millions of Years Old

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 15 2010


Click Photo For Higher Resolution

Fossil Under Lens Like Manmade Shoe—
Microphotos Are Made of Freak Taken From Rock Millions of Years Old—-
Stitches Are Revealed. —-Examination by Rockefeller Institute Tends to Upset Long-Accepted Theories
New York Times, August 13, 1922

Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

“Microphotographs taken by the Rockefeller Institute of the so-called Triassic shoe of Nevada have been interpreted by some experts as establishing that fossil, now in the possession of John T. Reid of Lovelock, Nev., as a work of human manufacture.

This fossil or freak, which resembles a hand-welted sole with marvelous definitiveness of detail, was found embedded in Triassic rock, somewhere from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 years old. The shoe, if it is a shoe, is older than the rock, because the rock must have formed over and around it by the precipitation of minerals from solution”….NYT Aug 13, 1922

The Apostle Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Merriam-Webster defines it this way in part;: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction”.

Paul says that faith is based on evidence. Popularly it is said that Christians believe without evidence but that science is wholly based on facts, evidence and substance.

This popular belief is wrong in both respects; faith in God is built on evidence and belief in evolution and materialism is without facts or substance—or else the “facts” have been misunderstood, ignored or twisted.

With respect to God, Romans Chapter 1 says that God’s invisible qualities and Divine nature can be clearly understood by what has been made-so that man is without excuse. Sir Isaac Newton put it this way:

” This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”

With respect to evolution natural selection has failed as an adequate mechanism to explain macroevolution and there is no known scientific explanation for the creation of life from non-life.

When it comes to the universe itself, the materialist essentially believes; in the beginning there was nothing—which exploded! When it comes to the origin of the universe and the mechanism for the macroevolution of plants and animals, evolutionists have to sustain themselves by faith! After all, the main scientific theory as to the origin of this universe (the big bang) requires one to accept that up to 96% of the universe is “invisible” and undetectable (dark matter and energy). See; that’s faith; belief in things unseen–but where is the evidence?

In 1922, John T. Reid, himself a mining engineer, found the sole of a shoe encased in “Triassic rock” outside Lovelock, Nevada. If accepted, it would have as the NY Times article suggested; upset long held theories. This is why there was absolutely zero chance of the fossil being accepted as a shoe sole either then, or now.

This would be true even after an examination by one of the preeminent medical institutes of the time (Rockefeller Inst.) examined the object under very high magnification and took photographs clearly showing the stitching.

Before the microphotographs were taken, certain scientists pronounced it ”the most remarkable natural imitation of an artificial object they had ever seen”. No doubt they would have said the same thing even if it had had a Nike logo embedded.

Now, science had said that Triassic rock was up to 300,000,000 years old. The Bible says that they are less than 10,000 years old. Somebody’s way off!

But now we have science which we’re told relies on facts and data with the object in hand and with the results of high magnification from every angle with which to produce more facts and data to decide the question. But would science’s loyalty be to the facts and the data or to the paradigm;—materialism, evolution and a very old universe? Faith defines what one believes but therefore also defines those things one cannot believe.

According to the discoverer and others who saw the microphotographs, under magnification, “the holes punched in the sole for stitching show very clearly, and even the twist of the thread used in the welt is developed”.

In microphotograph LH1, the right hand path of the stitching is clearly visible. “The twist of the thread is plainly visible … In micrograph, LH3 the stitching shows as having been doubled up for a portion of the distance around the sole.

In microphotograph LH2 there is a perfectly clear reproduction of the thread used in stitching the sole to the upper, and the spacing is clearly shown until it disappears beneath a portion of the sole”…

Reid, further discussing the results of the scientific testing on the fossil with the NY Times said; “It seems quite unnecessary for me to dwell on the remarkable resemblance to our modern shoe leather, as it appears reproduced here, in that it duplicates exactly in all respects the process that takes place in worn out shoes.”

…”In microphotograph LH2 ½ we have reproduced a portion of that contained in LH2, only on a scale of twenty times the magnification of the original specimen. In this highly magnified picture, the twist of the thread is distinctly visible. Its warp is brought out in unmistakable prominence. This admits of but one interpretation, which to all must be readily apparent, that this is the sole of a shoe that was surely done by the hand of man.”

All but two paleontologists and geologists to whom Reid had taken the fossil prior to the analysis insisted that it was simply a “freak of nature”. Those who accept the current ruling scientific paradigm really had no choice other than to refuse to accept the fossil as a shoe sole. Their faith demanded it.

If the fossil shoe had been confirmed by science, then either modern shoe-making man lived hundreds of millions of years ago—or Triassic rock is quite a bit younger than had been thought. At that time, human civilization was believed to have been between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.

Miners Watch Formation of Anthracite Coal-Supposedly 200 to 300 Million Years Old Form in 4 Months

There have doubtless been many previous discoveries of unexplained artifacts (unexplained by current paradigm) that would give the fossil shoe discovery some support. About 46 years prior to the discovery of the fossil shoe by a mining engineer, in 1876, another seemingly impossible and relevant discovery took place in the Indian Ridge Mining Shaft of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Co.

This particular out of place artifact was more than 50 feet long with a six inch diameter.

The article appeared in the Shenandoah Herald in March 1876. “Strange Statement—The Process of the Formation of Anthracite Coal Discovered in the Indian Ridge Shaft”.

It should be mentioned that anthracite was a type of coal thought to have formed on the latter end of the 200 to 300 million age range given for the fossil shoe.

A pipe had been installed in the mine for the purpose of diverting water from a nearby stream that otherwise would have continuously poured down upon the miners. After some time, this six inch pipe became clogged with reddish brown sediment from the stream reducing the pipe opening to about two inches. At that point, the flow was diverted and a new pipe was installed.

Four months later, a portion of the old pipe was taken down.

“when broken open the wonderful phenomenon presented itself that the sediment was gradually changing into what appears to be anthracite coal. About a half inch of the inside of the sediment lining the pipe had been changed into coal and the remainder was also gradually changing….The process of the formation is plainly seen in the sediment next to that which had already turned into coal.”

“….Samples of coal taken from the pipe have been tried on the blacksmith fire at the colltery, and it makes an exceedingly hot fire, but being of a softer nature then the natural anthracite, it clunkers badly.

Fortunately there are any quantity of samples of the wonderful formation, and those who are unwilling to believe without themselves seeing and touching can be accommodated…..A section of the pipe of about 16 feet long has been left standing in the shaft to see what results will follow…..”

Chances are, you have never heard of this “discovery” and it is doubtful that any follow-up research was undertaken. It should be noted that the discovery took place in a coal mine, so that there were plenty of people there who were very familiar with types of coal. You could imagine that if they had found a way to turn sediment into gold—and it didn’t mess with the paradigm, you would have heard of it.

Finally, the writer of that 1876 Shenandoah Herald article challenges the experts;

“if anthracite coal will form from sediment deposited by water when exposed to the action of the atmosphere under certain conditions for a period as short as four months, what becomes of all the pet theories of the geologist and mining engineers on the subject?

How about the great heat, the millions of years of time and tremendous, pressure which according to the various theories of the heretofore accepted authorities were necessary to account for our deposits of the finest and best fuel yet found?”

These stories have important ramifications in terms of how paradigm shifting or paradigm conflicting data and artifacts are approached by science. We have every reason to believe that few of them will see the light of day and then that even if they do, science will never accept them as genuine, no matter what the objective evidence might show. We have every reason to believe as well that there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of other paradigm shattering artifacts that have been found that we will never see or hear about.

The shoe fossil discoverer, John Reid, wanted to donate the fossil to some “scientific museum” so that others could see and make up their own minds.

This was unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.

See Also The Stones Cry Out Part 3;
Rock Solid Proof of Dinosaur and Human Interaction?

4th Edition

“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution

Church of Darwin, Religious, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 23 2009

Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University.

As such, he is internationally recognized as one of the foremost “evolutionist” , Atheist and Materialist in the world. We haven’t read a fraction of all that he has said, but he is apparently given to occasional bouts of blatant honesty.

He was previously and famously quoted for saying:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. “….Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997.

As reported in the following article, he began verbally thrashing around again at an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which he delivered some remarks that (unintentionally?) struck some severe blows against the Darwinist religion:

“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
Apologetic’s Press

Dr. Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Harvard University Press describes him as one of their “most brilliant evolutionary biologists.” A Harvard professor since 1973, he has impeccable academic credentials, and has gained worldwide notoriety for authoring several books, including The Triple Helix, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, and Biology as Ideology.

During the week of February 14-18, Dr. Lewontin was invited to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts. Michale Balter, writing for Science magazine, reported briefly on Lewontin’s comments that caused quite a stir in the evolutionary community. Balter titled his article “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” (2008). In the first paragraph, Balter quipped that Lewontin really “knows how to grab an audience’s attention.”

What did Lewontin say that was so noteworthy and attention-grabbing? Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily.

James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line” (2008, emp. added).

Lewontin then turned his attention to the fossil record. Randerson summarized Dr. Lewontin’s statements by saying: “The main problem is the poor fossil record. Despite a handful of hominid fossils stretching back 4m [million—KB] years or so, we can’t be sure that any of them are on the main ancestral line to us. Many or all of them could have been evolutionary side branches” (2008). Randerson continued, stating: “Worse, the fossils we do have are difficult to interpret. ‘I don’t have the faintest idea what the cranial capacity [of a fossil hominid] means,’ Lewontin confessed. What does a particular brain size tell us about the capabilities of the animal attached to it?” (2008).

Of course, Lewontin’s comments fly in the face of everything the general population has been led to believe about human evolution. The beautiful drawings showing ape-like creatures gradually evolving in a straight line into humans have been plastered on science-lab walls, in science textbooks, and in popular science magazines for the last five decades. We have been told that the hominid fossil record is so complete that it provides irrefutable evidence verifying human evolution. We have been told that our “ancestral” fossils indicate exactly when our ancient great-grandparents began to walk upright, when they evolved greater cognitive skills, and when they evolved into us.

Lewontin was not finished tearing into the standard evolutionary party line about hominid fossils. Randerson noted that Lewontin “is even skeptical that palaeoanthropologists can be sure which species walked upright and which dragged their knuckles. Upright posture is crucial for freeing up the hands to do other useful things” (2008).

What, then, did Lewontin conclude regarding the prevailing status of ignorance that pervades the scientific community regarding the supposed evolution of humans? He said: “We are in very serious difficulties in trying to reconstruct the evolution of cognition. I’m not even sure what we mean by the problem” (as quoted in Randerson, 2008).

The bombshell that Lewontin dropped on the 2008 AAAS annual meeting will leave devastating and lasting carnage in its wake in the evolutionary community. He debunked 50 years of orchestrated evolutionary propaganda. Randerson concluded his summary of Lewontin’s statements by observing: “All in all, despite thousands of scientific papers and countless National Geographic front covers, we have not made much progress in understanding how our most complicated and mysterious organ [brain—KB] came about” (2008).

After reviewing Lewontin’s statements and the various journal articles describing them, the writers of Creation/Evolution Headlines appropriately admonished the reader:

Remember this entry the next time you get a National Geographic cover story of a hominid with a philosopher’s gaze. Remember it when you are told stories about hominids walking upright, their hands now freed to scratch their chins and think. Remember it when you are shown a chimpanzee on NOVA performing memory tricks for a banana or smashing bugs with a rock. Remember it when a stack of erudite scientific papers on human evolution is placed on the witness table at a trial over whether students should be allowed to think critically about evolution in science class (“Paleofantasy…,” 2008).

To comment on this entry, email s8intcom@comcast.net

REFERENCES
Balter, Michael (2008), “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” Science, 319 [5866]:1028, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1028a.

“Paleofantasy: Brain Evolution is Mere Storytelling” (2008), Creation/Evolution Headlines, February 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm.

Randerson, James (2008), “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution,” Guardian, [On-line], URL: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/02/the_distinguished_biologist _pr.html.

——————————————————————————–

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Sensible Science” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

THE CREDIT CRUNCH FOR MATERIALISM

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 12 2009

by RUPERT SHELDRAKE

Biologist; Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project; author of A New Science of Life. In reply to the question posed by “The Edge Foundation: What Will Change Everything? What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?”

Credit crunches happen because of too much credit and too many bad debts. Credit is literally belief, from the Latin credo, “I believe.” Once confidence ebbs, the loss of trust is self-reinforcing. The game changes.

Something similar is happening with materialism.

Since the nineteenth century, its advocates have promised that science will explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry; science will show that there is no God and no purpose in the universe; it will reveal that God is a delusion inside human minds and hence in human brains; and it will prove that brains are nothing but complex machines.

Materialists are sustained by the faith that science will redeem their promises, turning their beliefs into facts. Meanwhile, they live on credit. The philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper described this faith as “promissory materialism” because it depends on promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, it is facing an unprecedented credit crunch.

In 1963, when I was studying biochemistry at Cambridge I was invited to a series of private meetings with Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner in Brenner’s rooms in King’s College, along with a few of my classmates. They had just cracked the genetic code. Both were ardent materialists.

They explained there were two major unsolved problems in biology: development and consciousness. They had not been solved because the people who worked on them were not molecular biologists – nor very bright. Crick and Brenner were going to find the answers within 10 years, or maybe 20. Brenner would take development, and Crick consciousness. They invited us to join them.

Both tried their best. Brenner was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his work on the development of the nematode worm Caenorhabdytis. Crick corrected the manuscript of his final paper on the brain the day before he died in 2004. At his funeral, his son Michael said that what made him tick was not the desire to be famous, wealthy or popular, but “to knock the final nail into the coffin of vitalism.”

He failed. So did Brenner. The problems of development and consciousness remain unsolved. Many details have been discovered, dozens of genomes have been sequenced, and brain scans are ever more precise. But there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone.

The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness is nothing but brain activity. However, among researchers in neuroscience and consciousness studies there is no consensus. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine.

For example, Steven Lehar argues that inside our heads there must be a miniaturized virtual-reality full-colour three-dimensional replica of the world. When we look at the sky, the sky is in our heads. Our skulls are beyond the sky. Others, like the psychologist Max Velmans, argue that virtual reality displays are not confined to our brains; they are life-sized, not miniaturized. Our visual perceptions are outside our skulls, just where they seem to be.

The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem” of consciousness because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, for example, the quality of redness is still unaccounted for.

In biology and psychology the credit-rating of materialism is falling fast. Can physics inject new capital? Some materialists prefer to call themselves physicalists, to emphasize that their hopes depend on modern physics, not nineteenth-century theories of matter. But physicalism’s credit-rating has been reduced by physics itself, for four reasons.

First, some physicists argue that quantum mechanics cannot be formulated without taking into account the minds of observers; hence minds cannot be reduced to physics, because physics presupposes minds.

Second, the most ambitious unified theories of physical reality, superstring and M theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, take science into completely new territory. They are a very shaky foundation for materialism, physicalism or any other pre-established belief system. They are pointing somewhere new.

Third, the known kinds of matter and energy constitute only about 4% of the universe. The rest consists of dark matter and dark energy. The nature of 96% of physical reality is literally obscure.

Fourth, the cosmological anthropic principle asserts that if the laws and constants of nature had been slightly different at the moment of the Big Bang, biological life could never have emerged, and hence we would not be here to think about it. So did a divine mind fine-tune the laws and constants in the beginning?

Some cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes, all with different laws and constants. We just happen to exist in the one that has the right conditions for us.

In the eyes of skeptics, the multiverse theory is the ultimate violation of Occam’s Razor, the principle that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. But even so, it does not succeed in getting rid of God. An infinite God could be the God of an infinite number of universes.

Here on Earth we are facing climate change, great economic uncertainty, and cuts in science funding. Confidence in materialism is draining away. Its leaders, like central bankers, keep printing promissory notes, but it has lost its credibility as the central dogma of science. Many scientists no longer want to be 100% invested in it.

Materialism’s credit crunch changes everything. As science is liberated from this nineteenth-century ideology, new perspectives and possibilities will open up, not just for science, but for other areas of our culture that are dominated by materialism. And by giving up the pretence that the ultimate answers are already known, the sciences will be freer – and more fun.