FALSE LOGIC

The inevitable consequence of evolutionary training
is indoctrination in an inverted form of logic. Inverted logic
begins at the wrong end and runs counter to the fundamental
laws of science. Inverted logic is the type that would erroneously
lead one to think he can lift himself up by his own bootstraps,
with his feet still inside the boots. To be logical, one must
apply the known governing principles. In this case the governing
principles are Newton's laws of motion and the law of gravity.

The application of evolutionary doctrine to the
origin of the universe always involves inverted logic. It is
typified by the so-called big bang theory of the origin of the
universe. According to that dominant theory, the universe began
as a ball of energy and evolved, through the process of explosion
and expansion, into our highly ordered and beautiful universe.
If there ever was an inversion of logic, that is it. An explosion
does not produce order, it produces disorder! The big
bang theory violates all the applicable governing principles
of physics. The multitude of papers espousing the big bang explanation
of origins are indeed nothing more than piffle. In case
the reader is unfamiliar with the word piffle, Webster's Dictionary
describes it as: "trifling talk;" "stuff and
nonsense;" "twaddle," all of which applies to
the inverted logic in evolutionary indoctrination.

The big bang theory is not an isolated case of
inverted logic in evolutionary "science." Inverted
logic is inherent in the doctrine itself. The doctrine espouses
the principle that lower order can, by self-acting but unknown
processes, evolve to higher and higher order. It takes oceans
of piffle to sell that to students. That is what students get
from teachers, textbooks, journals, and the news media. It is
de facto censorship of straightforward logic and of some
important facts of science in that area of their education.

The result of this massive indoctrination is that
students in our educational institutions are so shackled by
that training in inverted logic that it is an uphill battle
for them ever to be creative and productive. Straight thinking
is hard to come by when one has been required to memorize so
much piffle and has been tested on how well he "understands"
it. Many students have found it unprofitable to question evolutionary
doctrine openly in class. As a university physics professor,
I have frequently pointed out the logical fallacies involved
in the doctrine of evolution. The students have no difficulty
in seeing these fallacies. They often ask: "Why haven't
our other teachers told us this?" One student said, "I
have always known that it is bunk, but now I know why."

SECRET POSTULATE

Whenever one uses inverted logic it means that
he started at the wrong end. That is the best-kept "secret"
in all of evolutionary doctrine. It is axiomatic that an evolutionist
is never to acknowledge that his ultimate postulate of origins
is a metaphysical one, not something that one can claim to have
arrived at by science. The author recently wrote a letter to
the editor of a local newspaper exposing the lack of logic in
the evolutionary position. The editor was kind enough to print
everything in the letter except this one sentence: "I have
yet to see an evolutionist admit the fact that his initial postulate
is a metaphysical one." So the newspaper did its part in
preserving that secret of evolutionary doctrine, that evolutionary
doctrine does indeed begin with a metaphysical postulate that
lies outside the domain of science.

The catechism of evolutionary doctrine includes
the dogma that the evolutionary view is science and the creationist
view is religion. That is why it is intolerable for the evolutionary
news media to allow one to bring up the subject of the initial
postulate of evolution—that metaphysical postulate of the
beginning state. One may talk about the big bang theory, but
one dare not ask the question: "Where did that initial
ball of energy come from?" When big bang advocates are
really pressed for an answer, they usually contrive a story
about a prior oscillating universe in which the universe contracted
and formed that ball of energy. But when pressed for the ultimate
origin, the discussion is abruptly shut off. It is still a fact
that the doctrinaire evolutionist will never admit he begins
with a metaphysical postulate—a faith postulate. Furthermore,
evolution requires additional faith because the evolutionary
position is not a self-consistent scientific position. It requires
some hypothetical mechanism that must run counter to the fundamental
laws of science.

Creationists have all too often backed away from
the initial postulate, namely special creation by the Creator.
That is the postulate that makes the creationist position consistent
and from which the universe can then run in accordance with
the fundamental laws of science. Why should we back away from
this ultimate postulate, based upon a faith that is very real
to us, and let the evolutionist get by without acknowledging
his mystical postulate of ultimate origin based upon a hopeless
faith?

PHILOSOPHY OF DOOM

Insofar as science is concerned, one can be sure
that the universe is running down and headed for its death.
That will be the condition in which all of the energy in the
universe is so downgraded that it is no longer usable. The sun
and stars will have burned out. There will be no streams of
water. There will be no life. If there were no God, that condition
would surely come. This is the philosophy of doom inherent in
evolution, but evolutionists refuse to acknowledge it.

The evolutionist has no scientific means of explaining
the origin of the universe nor of how to keep it from dying,
if he had been able to figure out how to get it going in the
first place. He is in a very unsatisfactory position, both scientifically
and philosophically. The preachments and piffle of the Carl
Sagan type are deceptions of the highest order. There is nothing
glorifying in the doctrine of evolution, with its philosophy
that might makes right, the survival of the fittest. The fittest
would not be very fit in a universe that is dead. That is the
inexorable end of all present scientific processes, short of
God's intervention.

This illustrates the hopelessness of the evolutionist.
He cannot be totally scientific, because science, by itself,
is not self-consistent. It depends upon an origin that lies
outside the domain of science. The universe had to be wound
up some way. Science is not in the business of self-winding
from lower to higher order. The only thing outside of science
that makes sense for accomplishing that feat is the creative
action of almighty God.

CONSISTENT POSITION

The creationists do not have all the answers,
but they have the only consistent position. It has been a grave
mistake for the creationists to let the evolutionists intimidate
them into compromising. We have a position that is scientifically
and Scripturally sound, and have no need to depart from it.
There are places where we must acknowledge the miraculous acts
of God, notably the original creation and the Noahic flood.
That contributes consistency to the explanations of present
observations.

It is dangerous to try to inject scientific explanations
into the creation week. Surely God's action during that week
transcended anything we recognize as science today. We should
be awed by it, content to consider only the processes of science
in the universe which were placed in effect by God after
it was created, fully wound up.

Fiat creation answers many questions that are
not answerable by science per se. Creationist scientists
appreciate research such as that of Dr. Robert Gentry, on radiohalos
which seems to prove that there was primordial Polonium 218
in the basement rock. This evidence is true scientific evidence
of fiat creation of the earth's basement rock. This provides
a consistency between the original creation and present scientific
evidence.

In the writer's judgment, creationists are missing
the boat when they major on attempts to refute each and every
piffle of the evolutionary line. The strongest refutation of
the evolutionary position is the young age of the universe and
the earth. This young age refutes the whole gamut of evolution
in one stroke. There is ample scientific evidence now to stand
firm on this position of a young age. It is wrong to let evolutionists
get by without having to stand up to the strong scientific evidences
of a young earth age. He would, of course, rather throw out
a barrage of piffle than take on an issue so profound as the
scientific evidences of a young earth. Any creationist scientist
who knows the subject and refuses to compromise on a young age,
should be able to demolish the evolutionary doctrine by bearing
down on the many strong evidences of a young age for the earth,
moon, sun, and short-period comets. The evolutionists have no
valid answers for these evidences.

SUMMARY

1. The evolutionary doctrine is not supported
by straightforward scientific logic. It is inherently tied to
an inverted logic—false logic.

2. There is no valid mechanism for producing evolution. This
is not surprising, because all of the applicable laws of science
involve processes that run in the opposite direction from the
presumed evolutionary processes.

3. The evolutionary doctrine has been kept afloat by indoctrination.
When carefully analyzed, its preachments are nothing more than
piffle.

4. There has been de facto censorship of the scientific
evidences that support the creation position.

5. Doctrinaire evolutionists never acknowledge that their ultimate
postulate of origins is a metaphysical one—a faith postulate
outside of the scientific domain.

6. The evolutionary philosophy is a philosophy of doom.

7. The creationists' position is consistent when it acknowledges
special creation by the Creator and subsequently employs scientific
analysis to the processes that take place after creation.

8. Consistency requires that a worldwide flood, in relatively
recent times, be affirmed. That is an aid to a true understanding
of geology—not a hindrance.

9. Evidences of a young age for the universe and the earth provide
a strong refutation of the whole gamut of evolution, and should
not be neglected.