What if Secularism Worships Irrationality?
2014 © Cameron Rebigsol
1. Pursuing Irrationality with Law
2. Pursuing Irrationality with Natural Science
(a) Nothingness being the Creator of Many Universes
(b) Chaos being the Creator of Life
1. Pursuing Irrationality with Law
Guided by the teaching of Christianity, the Declaration of Independence laid down the legitimacy for American people to pursue the separation from the British crown nearly two and a half centuries ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
Today, however, a new ideological flood has tried everything possible to convince the Americans that Christianity is the exact culprit that has made the US government become destructive of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. This ideology is not new in history, but just being comparatively new as a trend gaining momentum nowadays in influencing this country. This ideology is actually not even an ideology in nature, because, being called secularism, it is veiling itself as some “principle” only to pursue separation between ideology and government.
Anyone being puzzled at this secular veil must keep one truth in mind: no large scale of any human activity, government business in particular, can go on without ideology, but just what kind of ideology. He who claims to make the activity free of ideology is, actually, intentionally or not, paving way for some particular ideology to filtrate in. In today’s American salad bowl of secularists rally all the atheists, Socialists, people declining moral restriction, people holding adverse view toward Christianity such as Muslims…
All these secularists sternly share one vow: to defend the US Constitution’s genuineness, which, according to them, has secularism as its utmost essence. They said the US Constitution has plenty of text to manifest its secular nature and to mandate the government to abide to secular principle. If, they claim, secularism cannot achieve dominance in all public life in this country, the US government would become irrational, deriving its power without the consent of the governed. The texts they found in the Constitution or other document as evidence for their support are mainly:
(1) The First Amendment.
(2) The segment of clause “…no religious Test shall ever be required…”
(3) Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, which says “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
(4) The religion backgrounds of every signatory in the three most prestigious documents in American history, i.e., the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States.
So unfortunate to the secularists, all the evidence they found for their support only turned out to stand firm against their argument. For this, we have a separate article with more details explaining why the secularists’ view is so inescapably self-crumbling. This article can be found under the title The United States of America―A Country of Christianity by Law, contributed by Rebigsol in this website www.huntune.net. To avoid repeating the arguments from that article here, we would briefly summarize in the following few paragraphs why the secularists must fail themselves with the “evidence” they found.
When quoting their evidence (1), the secularists must ask people to view “an establishment of religion” being equal to religion. However, an establishment of religion cannot make itself equal to religion, just like a citizen of America cannot make him/herself equal to America. English grammar alone will not make their view of equaling pass, not to mention law and logic. Law can find an establishment of religion committing crime under certain circumstance, but no law can find a religion committing crime.
As to their evidence (2), the secularists have long contorted the understanding of “religious test not required” into a test of “Christianity being unacceptable” and, riding on this contortion, ruthlessly mandating secular test. However, a secular test is exactly an ironclad religious test, and it just forces a pledge of animosity against theistic faith, targeting at nothing else but Christianity in America. How is it not a religious test if it sternly requires the cleansing of certain religion?
As to their evidence (3), they apply the same trick of confusion as what they apply on the First Amendment, equating the “government of the United States of America” with “the United States of America”. Adding to the confusion, they never mention to people that this treaty of 1796 has been superseded by a similar one signed in 1805, in which words describing the government’s religious nature are dropped. Most decisively crumbling this evidence of theirs is the fact that both treaties of Tripoli have vanished in history and been unable to bind anyone with legal power what so ever, as one of the beneficiaries of the treaties no longer exists.
Using evidence (4) to serve their secular agenda, the secularists have devoted all diligence they can find to blemish the religious background of those signatories. However, their diligence only reaffirms the worldwide historical sentiment regarding the USA being a Christianity nation. Because of the religious background of these signatories, the worldwide sentiment that America is a Christian country has been always strong and so strong that the secularists believe they need to “clarify” it.
Nevertheless, no matter what text they found as their “evidence”, such text must only be seamlessly conform to and be coherent with the following statement in the Constitution:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (Article VI)
Without this clause, America does not even have a country name to stand as a nation. The Constitution of 1787 did not bestow itself with a power to name this country, but decided to inherit such a name as one of the “Engagements” that is recorded in another but the only document, which is called the Articles of Confederation (AOC), in which one can read:
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". (Article I)
So inheriting, another engagement, entered as Article III in the AOC, must also, with the full power as a supreme law, actively continue to mandate the US Government to defend Christianity. Selective inheritance is unfound and not allowed because of the word “all” in the above statement of Article VI. Also unfound is any mentioning of preference of secularism in the US Constitution. Here is the engagement found as Article III in the AOC, which is pledged by the US Constitution to be unconditionally inherited altogether with the name of the nation:
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Religion is listed in this engagement as the top account to be defended.
2. Pursuing Irrationality with Natural Science
(a) Nothingness Being the Creator of Many Universes
Besides fabricating legitimacy with text doctored from the supreme law, the secularists also try to search for legitimacy with the help of natural science in order to make their secular shamming look indisputable. Is the evidence they formulated with nature’s laws impeccable or just as equally irrational and self-defeated as their evidence fabricated with social law?
Needless to say, to them, if the concept of God, the Christian God, can be disintegrated, all their secular claims will be naturally taken for granted by Americans. To help them achieve this goal, they reckon that no science theory can serve them better than the Big Bang theory and Darwin’s evolution. These two theories, sternly and directly contesting the existence of God, have earned high popularity because they are able to robe themselves as some symbol of topmost wisdom of mankind. Overall, Big Bang is a theory preaching that the creation of the universe has no need to have God involved; the universe has created itself from nothing, which would continuously create new universes. Darwin’s evolution is a theory just owes the existence of all lives to some common ancestor that had established its own life in an otherwise lifeless world; human being is just one of the links appearing somewhere along the descendent chain for this ancestor.
Before we go any further, a common character from both theories caught our attention: both theories must intertwine with a doctrine that nothingness is the source of everything. Both theories simultaneously need the support of this doctrine to prove their own validity as well as providing “evidence” to fortify this doctrine.
Let’s first go over the Big Bang theory.
When referring to Big Bang, everyone knows who Steven Hawking is. According to Mr. Hawking, God is not needed, but just a set of laws of nature, in the creation of the universe. In his book The Grand Design, he said:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God...
This statement would immediately dismay its readers how the law of gravity could have been part of the nothingness before the universe is created by the nothingness. Do people need to redefine “nothingness” in philosophy as well as in English dictionary? If this puzzle born with such fallacious logic cannot be clarified, the Big Bang theory must carry with it all irrationality to meet any challenge against it. Setting aside this puzzle, to which the only solution is an acceptance of being self-ridiculed, let’s further examine a few other cases arisen by Big Bang.
Case (1), regarding how the Big Bang’s singularity completed its explosion in an extremely short time interval. Hubble’s observation has established that the majority of celestial objects are receding from us, signified as red shift movement. The further an object is located from us, the higher the speed in its receding. Using this as evidence, the Big Bang theory reasons that the universe is expanding. Because, according to this theory, the universe came to existence after the explosion of a singularity, the universe then must have an edge denoting its most frontal expansion. Celestial materials there must have been traveling at the highest speed leaving us, while those lagging behind would travel at lower speed, the further from the edge, the lower the speed. If this reasoning sounds, today, 13.8 billion years after the explosion, the material distribution along any line we look toward the edge of the universe must impress us with this phenomenon: the further along the line, the thinner the space density of material would become. Subsequently, given the inevitable isotropic character that the Big Bang theory must allow for the explosion, a material point that could be referred as the center of universe would have easily suggested itself to us. So far, all observations only suggest a homogeneous material distribution per unit volume allover in the space, although local irregularities are seen here and there. Such observed homogeneity must cast serious and nearly irreconcilable skepticism on the view that the expansion is a result of an explosion. Indeed, to reconcile, the Big Bang promoters suggest people to imagine how a loaf of bread would expand during the baking process. Such a loaf does maintain spatial homogeneity of material distribution while expanding. To have a model matching this suggestion, the Big Bang supporters have necessarily led us to the next case.
Case (2), material is homogeneously distributed along any radial line centered from an observer. To realize such distribution, the source of explosion must control the exploding so well that material batches, regardless of its size, can leave the source with certain constant speed that is linearly decreasing according to each patch’s leaving time. This model sure can maintain linear homogeneity along each radial line and between all these lines. However, it is unable to maintain the same areal density of material distribution between surfaces of spheres of different radius. The bigger the radius a sphere has, the lower the material density per unit area on this sphere’s surface would end up. Besides, unless the material spewing can permanently continue, an exhaustion void in the universe about where the source locate must sooner or later show up. So far, no such active source is ever reported for the Big Bang to earn any material support. A model of well controlled explosion and a model of abrupt explosion, which is the one the Big Bang theory has been advocating, must remove each other. Sure, for the fun of it, we can also devise another model as illustrated in case (3) below to match the Big Bang’s fantasy.
Case (3), prior to the explosion, density of mass and energy contained by the singularity had been distributed inversely proportional to each patch’s distance from the center of the singularity. However, this model is very destructive to the fundamental concept of the Big Bang theory in two folds: (a) No any dough of bread loaf before baked can be so devised as illustrated in this model if the expansion manner of the universe is to be compared with the bread’s expansion manner. (b) Acceptance of this model means that dimension of space can exist before the singularity launched its explosion. The Big Bang theory must forbid such acceptance, which appears so fatal to the Big Bang’s flagship idea that dimension of space cannot exist before the singularity’s explosion.
No model regarding spatial material distribution can be devised to match what Big Bang preaches. Besides, other astronomy observations also directly challenge Big Bang’s single explosion assertion, such as blue-shift movement, meaning some celestial objects moving toward us, directly contradicting explosion behavior. Further, did the singularity contain limited or unlimited quantity of mass and energy before the explosion? Either limited or unlimited would embarrass the Big Bang theory. To extricate, it relies on a concept that dimension of space has no significance until it is created by the singularity’s explosion.
One of the big challenges that Big Bang always encounters is how the singularity had found space for itself to stay when the universe is not yet created. If space was already so provided for the singularity, shouldn’t this space belong to some universe of more seniority and make the singularity just part of it? So the Big Bang supporters ask people to accept that the singularity had packed and monopolized with it everything that we can feel with real sense, such as mass and energy, or imagine with abstract reasoning, such as space and time.
If their dogma works, space cannot exist beyond the outmost expansion front. Beyond this front, nothing must stay as nothing. If the dimension of space can be found beyond, something not created by Big Bang’s singularity has existed, and the Big Bang theory must terminate itself right here. However, the idea that dimension of space is created by the explosion of the singularity would dreadfully remove the notion of explosion. As a product of the singularity’s explosion, the dimension of space cannot be independent of the character of the universe’s expansion, but must inherit the same elasticity as the expansion itself. The comparison between the dimension occupied by the entire expansion and any segment of this dimension must then forever maintain the same ratio―no expansion can be concluded. Simply imagine a kid growing with perfect proportion between all his body parts all the time. If he is allowed only to use his knuckle to measure his body length, he can never know how much he has grown, but permanently, say, 50 knuckle lengths. He would know only if he is allowed to use, say, the length of his first shoes in his life; the shoes are independent of his birth, a creation from some other source.
Self-contradictions invoked by the Big Bang theory are so overwhelming that its promoters feel the need of putting up many “indisputable” band aids for rescue. The main idea of all these band aids still relies on their flagship avocation that something can come from nothing, and nothingness does warrants the emerging of something.
One of the band aids is the concept of multiverse: “Science predicts that many different kinds of universes will be spontaneously created out of Nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in...” This is only a different appearance of the same version of the idea that nothingness, with some laws from the nature, such as the law of gravity, can create universe―upon the maturity of some random combination of nature’s laws and cosmic constants is born a universe. Therefore, according to them, universe and the nature are separate entities. How much rationality, or irrationality, can be found in this “science” logic?
It requires energy for any random shuffling of anything into new combination. Where does the energy come from if a universe is not yet created? Another band aid thus shows up: Random fluctuation in the nothingness creates negative energy and then allows positive energy to be generated for a universe to form. Negative energy and positive energy well balance each other, thus law of energy conservation is not violated. Perfect! But fluctuation contrasts to what backdrop, time, matter, space, light or heat intensity…? Even more to the point, what is fluctuating?
Some of the band aids even claim to have found material evidence in observation witnessing something coming out of nothing, both in experimental and astronomical environments. However, there are two catches against such claim. (1) Is the space from which the source identified as nothingness but producing something part of the universe we live in? Or is it part of some other universe from which we are absolutely isolated? (2) How do they identify the source capable of producing something as having been genuinely nothing? What degree of perfectness can their instrument and method achieve in identifying absolute nothingness? At least, it is said nowadays that dark matter and dark energy have permeated in our universe so thorough through that no one can live anywhere without their embracement, save the mentioning of neutrinos. Does the Big Bang theory support or oppose the idea of dark matter and dark energy, how about neutrinos? Human beings have been fooled many times by nothingness in their history of understanding the nature. One of the most typical puzzles of nothingness in ancient time was what had caused the spread of epidemic disease. The bacteria or virus in those eras were so undetectable and thus appeared so matching their concept of nothingness.
The most inconceivable price the Big Bang supporters are willing to pay for all this band aids is their volunteering sacrifice of Einstein’s relativity, relying on which the Big Bang theory develops its mathematical validity. To maintain that the outmost expanding front enabled by the Big Bang can proceed beyond any speed barrier, they claim that general relativity allows the movement of the “edge” of the universe to exceed any speed limit. If they don’t bestow general relativity with such privilege, they have hard time to match the universe’s age with the age of many remote celestial objects that tell us different story with their virtue light frequency and redshift character. In claiming that general relativity allows light speed to be exceeded, do they remember that speed limit of light affirmed by special relativity is the steadfast principle for general relativity to gain its validity? Even more to the point, how serious are these so called scientists in doing research?
Surely relativity is an invalid theory, but not in the way shown by the frivolous and reckless arbitration commanded by the promoters of the Big Bang theory, by those who ask people to believe the universe can come out from nothing. Relativity is invalid because its own cored mathematical derivation is self-defeating. For this, if a reader feeling interested in more details, he can refer to Rebigsol’s article A Simple Question from but against Relativity in the website www.huntune.net, where an award of $100,000 is posted for successful refutation against Rebigsol’s argument.
All in all, the promoters of the Big Bang theory advocate their theory with this faith: owning the laws of nature and some cosmic constants, nature itself is nothingness but would inevitably create universes, namely, multiverse. The central theme of this faith is: The existence of universe needs a creator, but a creator of their version, a creator that is the synonym of nothingness! All this self-defeating and irrational arguments can only serve as a confession from them that they fail to explain the origin of the universe. So failing, they must permanently leave room for other’s theistic faith to prevail.
Besides the Big Bang theory, the secularists also found another theory that would help them no better in sternly affixing their target at repelling God: Darwin’s evolution.
(b) Chaos Being the Creator of Life
Since its debut, Darwin’s evolution had been incessantly cornered to confront with a challenging question: how was the very first life enabled to show up in nature? Retrospective scrutiny of parental line of living beings must make this question unavoidable. Before this first life appeared, any grouping of materials, simple or complicated, must be lifeless. Parallel to Big Bang’s simple faith that nothingness having created the universe, all those atheistic evolutionists ask people to abide to a faith that lifelessness has created life.
Scientists, many of them are also Christians, have long pointed out one mathematical conclusion: with the chaotic distribution of substance found in the wild nature, to have random material particles join together to form highly orderly arrangement as shown by live organisms, the probability is extremely low. It is even easier to expect a brand new dictionary to be the aftermath of the bombardment of a junkyard. Unless planned effort interferes, no organization of material, while depending only on nature’s random shuffling, can reach the complexity of arrangement as shown by live organisms.
Any live organism can be considered a thermodynamic system. Except independent eggs that take nearly zero mass from the vicinity, most of these systems incessantly receive energy and mass from their external environment. While retaining part of the intake, a live organism also releases some, although different content, back to the environment. Overall, the system must enjoy a positive net gain on the energy account. Gaining energy, such living system is also found reducing the entropy introduced to it along with the mass intake. However, the net gain of energy and reduction of entropy in the same system must contradict the dictation of the second law of thermodynamics (simply called the second law from here on). Circumvention of the dictation is needed so that incoming entropy can be lowered at the presence of additional energy―uncontrollable increasing of entropy must lead to the destruction of the system. So far, no thermodynamic system in the wild nature except live organisms can be found being able so circumventing. Other than live organisms, anything else that can circumvent the second law’s dictation is unexceptionally found being a product of intelligence activity. Induction enabled by such innumerable products of no exception would naturally lead people to establish that live organisms are also products of intelligent design. The reason is simple: why are they not and how can they be not?
Evolutionists against the notion of intelligent design commonly regard the entire earth as one open system to support their argument, instead of regarding each live organism as an individual thermodynamic system. Relying on this preference of regard, they think they found sound reason to reject the argument from their opponents who insist that spontaneous upgrading of complexity of material arrangement in the wild nature must violate the second law. The second law, in the perception of the evolutionists, cannot constitute a reason in an open system to obstruct the happening of such spontaneous upgrading.
If nature functions as what their preference speculates, every day we must be able to discover in the wild nature the omnipresence of material conglomerations that can behave similar to manmade refrigerators. Such conglomerations can have function of putting its own entropy under control at the motivation of added energy, but yet unable to self-replicate―self-replication is uniquely a necessary and sufficient sign of life for an organism. Possessing such behaviors, these conglomerations then necessarily occupy the ancestral stage before some future organism can show sign of life. Conversely speaking, the appearance of live organisms requires the preemptive appearance of such material conglomeration. However, never any such material conglomeration has been found in the open system called earth.
In supporting their argument against intelligent design, the evolutionists even use circular logic, saying that it has been so natural for a huge cascade of lives to manage the energy from the sun without the concern of the second law’s adverse effect on spontaneous upgrading orderly arrangement of material particles. Thus, according to them, intelligent design has nothing to do with this cascade’s appearance and continue existence. No more plainly and literally, they just say that life’s appearance is enabled by life. Equivalently, this logic says that the appearance and sustenance of the refrigerators is enabled by the refrigerators, having nothing to do with intelligent design. No argument, cloaked as sophisticate academic idea conveying, can appear cruder and more irrational.
It is true that the second law of thermodynamics is quantitatively concluded with some hypothetical isolated system (not exactly closed system as what the evolutionists appear to refer to). However, the same law also allows the co-existence of a qualitative statement saying that heat energy cannot spontaneously transfer itself from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. The qualitative statement should be more universally and unconditionally applicable in open or closed system, while absolutely isolated system for the quantitative derivation does not exist. If the evolutionists refuse the second law to be applied in scrutinizing the thermodynamic process in non-isolated system, open or closed, they need to prove the following process being independent of the second law’s governing: When a system’s entropy is lowered as a result of heat being exported out of the system, separate amount of energy must be applied to realize the exportation, and such separate energy must be isolated from the system. Following this, they must further prove the following is possible: in an open system, materials can rally into some group that shows a state of lower entropy but either (1) without heat being generated, or (2) any heat thus generated can stay out of this group and will never reenter. But then they must answer how genuinely open is their open system.
People disagreeing on evolution focus their debate on “The Origin of Species”, not on the origin of the Earth. The evolutionists’ asking people to examine the entire earth as one thermodynamic system obviously only want to divert the focus of discussion. At this point, they may want to put up material evidence such as Miller-Urey experiment for their argument on how life initially appeared from a lifeless world. Then they need to explain why an experiment carries no nature of intelligent design.
There are two major mechanisms of life that no evolutionist is able to explain regardless of what known nature’s law they would apply. (1) Given a material conglomeration that maximally resembles a live body in material arrangement, must this conglomeration be guaranteed to possess the functions of life? (2) Why must all lives die? If “yes” is the answer for question (1), we would have no trouble for a corpse to have signs of life restored―signs of life can just wander in and out of the body freely. Question (2) annihilates the validity of evolution’s absolute dogma “survival of the fittest”, because no immortal life has ever been resulted out of this dogma. If this dogma can stand firm and immortal life has been found, then, the evolutionists may have a chance to declare that chaotic collision of material particles may introduce right opportunity for some spontaneous occurrence of live organisms. However, no such right opportunity ever shows up; all lives must be destroyed in the arms of nature’s randomness, sooner or later, one way or the other. These two questions come together would give so much more room for intelligent design to render indisputably valid answer. An egg is a good example to illustrate the phenomenon involving these two questions together.
An egg is a good closed system, which hardly exchanges mass with the environment but, during incubation, does receive good amount of energy from its vicinity. While being intact, no one can guarantee a new life would inevitably emerge from it with respect to the same egg. Even when everything else is the same, the presence or absence of a droplet of semen will lead to a life’s thriving or perishing, two opposite worlds. Sperm here serves as a key of life unlocking. How would a key not bear the finger print of design? While an egg may stay inactive for a while if not incubated, prolonging storage will eventually make it unable to hatch new life―nature’s randomness must destroy its life mechanism, one way or the other. Nature’s randomness has never showed people that it would lead a new life out of an egg―it, then, must be even far more remote to expect any life to be established out of some lifeless materials scattered in the wild nature. Plant seeds carry scenario similar to eggs.
There are some more questions that can challenge evolution’s idea that life has come from nature’s lifeless random environment. If life has established itself on lifeless materials, when the first sign of life showed up on earth, did it show up on only one single individual organism? Did it show up on one batch of multiple individual organisms of the same content? Did it show up on multiple individual organisms of different content? Did it show up on more than one batch but with a distribution spreading in different areas on earth? Wild speculation must arise in answering these questions with “yes” or “no”, but they must all pivot the validity of evolution.
Aside from so many challenging questions concerning the emerging of the first life, the part of evolution concerning primatology and anthropology would be hungry enough to exhaust evolution’s answer. Here are a few of these questions.
1. One of the modern sciences that the evolutionists constantly refer to for their support is genetic study, mainly, DNA. They claim that life in higher form possesses more complicated DNA arrangement than life in lower form. It is so because only gene mutation makes it possible for more variety of gene samples to appear in nature’s selection. After the selection, those with more complicated genes survive the selection and thus stay as a higher form of life. (To avoid more complicated argument, at this point, we skip questioning them whether gene mutation in their concept covers only different arrangements of the same gene count or also covers gene addition/elimination.) It has also been commonly accepted by both people agreeing or disagreeing about evolution that Homo sapiens represent the highest form of life. If so, isn’t it reasonable for evolutionists’ gene mutation theory to predict that human beings have the most complicated genome among all animals? Surprisingly, we human beings even have one pair less chromosomes in our cells than that of chimpanzees’, which have 24. The evolutionists arbitrate the explanation on such retrogressing with a term called “fusion” but with proof skipped. If their idea “fusion” holds, what term will they use to explain the following chromosome number finding (shown with haploid number)?
Green monkey, 60
Diana monkey, 60
Brown woolly monkey, 62
Capuchin monkey, 54
Owl monkey, 49 (male) and 50 (female)
In the chronology of evolution, life form development is moving from low to high as primates progress from (monkeys) to (arboreal apes) to (Homo sapiens). The complexity of DNA structure must escalate accordingly along this line if the evolutionists’ gene mutation assertion is correct. But the finding is that the chromosome number gradually lessened along this line. How would evolutionists extricate themselves from this theoretic disaster of devolution?
2. Evolutionists have long told people that our ancestors had dwelled in the tree canopies for a long evolution period before they came down to flat land. Do the evolutionists have a clue who had placed those ancestors in the treetops to begin their arboreal life and from where?
3. Evolutionists and those anthropologists taking the atheistic evolution view claim that primates were all originated from Africa, even fossil evidence has suggested monkeys appeared in Europe more than 20 million years ago. Have they found any evidence to support a speculation that no primate can originate from other continents, and that, once dwelling in other continents, any primate must be forbidden from migrating into Africa?
4. Similar to the above claim, the same groups of people claim that all modern men are the descendants of some African origin in this 50 or 100 thousand years. Again, material evidence from them is absolutely absent. Equally dramatic, without material evidence of any kind, they also assert that Caucasians’ blue eyes are consequence of cultural selection of these seven or eight thousand years.
Evolution has presented enough to suggest that it desperately destroys itself in many ways, in logic, in natural law application, and in presentation of material evidence.
No other science theory can be more directly and pronouncedly confronted with the belief of God’s existence than the Big Bang theory and evolution theory started by Darwin. However, as formidable as the hope that these theories would serve the secularists’ God repellent desire, the self-defeating potential of the arguments from these theories are impassable. As the secularists mock and accuse Christians believing miracles, how far away do they think they are from worshiping nonsense? At least, holy miracles would not be self-defeated, but just possibly incomprehensible and inexplicable in a human’s mind with the power human can ever possess. Nonsense, however, is always self-rescindable.
If both the US Constitution and natural science can provide the secularists with no credit of rationality, why must the US government be forced to accept the dominance of secularism in its administration, openly violating its constitutional obligation of “binding themselves…against all force offered to, or attacks made…on account of religion…”? What can be so authoritative as to be able to force secular test down the US government’s throat so that it must openly violate “…no religious Test shall ever be required”? The violation has victimized our public schools with the most cruelty among all sectors of governmental institutions. A government supposedly defending religion affixes its persecution power against any education officer who dares to spread God’s words among the young posterity of the Founding Fathers. The US Constitution has been openly challenged and violated from top to bottom by secularists under the veil of pursuing its genuineness.
All in all, why should this country relinquish its dominance to irrationality in herding this county? The consequence of the relinquishing is that this country has become more and more irrational in all domestic and foreign affairs―the entire world has been acknowledged the America’s ever increasing irrationality, except, sadly, many Americans themselves.
How long can a person stay irrational? Then, how long can a country stay irrational?