This section is unrelated to language training. It is on a topic which has interested me since I was young like you -- the origins of the universe and biology. Credit for research belongs to many scientists. I have merely added my own interpretations. Please let me know if you find this useful.
My intention is not to push my ideas on you, but to share concepts and questions you may find useful in critically considering the instruction you receive in school. While living in Korea, Japan, and China, I volunteered in local schools and found that the evolutionary perspective is taught as fact. It holds that the universe and all of biology came into being through random processes alone without input from any intelligent entity. Now, that is also the case in American public schools and state-funded colleges.
Bottomline up front: I grew up believing in evolution. During my 20s, I dissected the evolution story into bite-size pieces I could understand, evaluated the scientific evidence for each, and considered probabilities. I found the evolution story to be unscientific and virtually impossible. In my view, teaching evolution as fact incorrectly leaves students with the impression that the evolution story is based in observational science and denies students an invitation to intellectually engage on this important topic. I would prefer schools present evolution as a hypothesis alongside scientific perspectives and encourage you and your classmates to judge for yourselves what you think happened. Here is my reasoning:
Because nobody was there to observe the beginnings of the cosmos, life, etc., how these things originated is a matter not of observational science but instead forensic science, like the kind used to solve crimes. The question, based on the available evidence, is what is reasonable to conclude happened in the past. Observational science contributes to our understanding of the evidence.
Mechanisms for change, as established by observational science, are key to forensics. For example, boiling is the mechanism through which liquid water transforms into a gas. Because this mechanism for change is well established through observation, it can be referred to as fact; in a courtroom, if a lawyer needs to refer to water boiling as evidence, there is no question about the reality of the concept. The problem with every phase of the evolutionary story is that each lacks basis in scientifically-established mechanisms for change. Instead, the evolution story is comprised of multiple layers of conjecture, making it too weak to be considered even a theory.
When scrutinizing an argument, investigators start with the foundation and move up layer by layer. If the foundation of the argument is strong they proceed with the investigation. If the foundation of the argument is bad, they discard the whole argument.
For the evolutionary story to be reasonable, I think, at a bare minimum, the following series of events without the involvement of an intelligent being, would have to be probable:
- Formation of a life-sustaining environment
- Life rising from non-life
- Transformation of lower life forms into higher life forms
FORMATION OF A LIFE-SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENT
The evolutionary explanation is that in the beginning there was nothing and then an explosion (the big bang) brought into existence all of the physical matter in the universe which settled to form the galaxies, our solar system, the earth’s ecosystem, etc.
Question … through what scientifically-established mechanism would the big bang have formed the cosmos and the earth’s ecosystem? There is no such mechanism.
Supposedly the big bang resulted in all the matter in the universe. Where did the matter come from? Additionally, to move all the mass around the universe would have required tremendous energy. Where would all of the energy have come from?
The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, represented by Einstein’s equation E = mc2, states that energy and mass remain constant.
Evolutionists argue that all the mass and energy in the entire universe must have existed pre-universe in a submolecular entity akin to a black hole with gravity so strong that all the mass and energy in the universe couldn’t escape it … until it became unstable and exploded.
Is there a known scientific mechanism for the storage of such mass and the release of such energy? No. It is conjecture. But do your teachers mention that it is conjecture? Do your textbooks include this information?
Let’s say for the sake of continuing this analysis that the big bang did happen.
The big bang is an explosion. What does the human race know about explosions? Explosions break down order into disorder, not the other way around. In the military, one of the jobs I did was targeteer. I would recommend the right munition to destroy a target. After the strike, I would conduct a battle damage assessment. Not once did I find the aftermath of a strike be an increase in order. If we hit a building, the next day a better building was not in its place. Is there a known scientific mechanism in which the debris from an explosion become organized? No.
Our cosmos, our solar system, and the earth’s ecosystem are extremely organized and operate in delicate precision according to principles of physics and chemistry so that even slight variations could result in non life-sustaining conditions. What scientific mechanism explains how the explosion of a big bang, without the input of an intelligent being, could produce this tremendous organization? There is no such scientific mechanism. The concept is complete conjecture. Have your teachers brought this leap in logic in the evolution story to your attention so you could put your own brain power against it?
You may be familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that everything in nature tends toward disorganization and less information. A question you might consider (or ask your professors) is how the explosion story of the Big Bang can be reconciled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In short, in my evaluation the evolutionary story of the formation of the physical world is either unsubstantiated by observational science or in direct opposition to it.
For the sake of continuing the evaluation of the “reasonableness” of the evolution story, let’s pretend that somehow a life-sustaining environment did come into being by accident. The next phase of the continuum would be ...
FORMATION OF LIFE
The evolution story is that a mixture of non-living chemicals just came to life.
Is there a scientific mechanism for non-living chemicals coming to life? No. It has never been observed. For decades, scientists, with all of their intelligence, have done their best to observe the spontaneous generation of life, even specially arranging conditions -- and it has not happened. Yikes! But do your professors or books mention this gaping hole in the very foundation of the evolution story?
Just for grins, let’s assume -- like evolutionists say -- that a microscopic organism did just happen to come to life on its own. Imagine its predicament. Before it died it would have to reproduce itself! How would that happen? The newly-formed organism would have to have to have come fully-equipped with the ability to read its own DNA and use that information to manufacture a duplicate of itself.
Probabilities matter. It’s how we determine what is reasonable and what isn’t. People live their lives according to probabilities. Entire industries, such as the insurance business, exist based on probabilities.
In 2016, the Cleveland Browns went 1-15. The 2017 Las Vegas opening odds against them making Super Bowl 52 were 300-1. They proceeded to go 0-16. In September the opening odds of the Browns making Super Bowl 53 will probably be around 350-1. Not such bad odds, right? Only 350-1. But do any of us know a reasonable person who believes the Browns will play in Super Bowl 53? Probably not. It’s just too unlikely to find reasonable.
Now, what would the probability be for ALL of the following things to happen without the input or guidance of an intelligent being?
(1) The big bang generating all the mass in the universe
(2) The big bang generating all the energy in the universe
(3) The debris from the big bang explosion settling into our super organized world
(4) Dead chemicals just coming to life
(5) The just-formed microorganism being able to read its own DNA
(6) The just-formed microorganism being able to manufacture a duplicate organism
Let’s take a look at numbers (5) and (6) for starters. The DNA of even microorganisms consists of about 3 billion letters in a specific order. Are we to believe that when this microorganism accidentally came to life it coincidentally came fully equipped with the amazing ability to read those 3 billion bits of information and to use that information to manufacture a duplicate of itself? What would be the odds against it? At least 3 billion to 1, right? That is so crazy unlikely I might as well believe if I throw wood and wires into my backyard it will assemble itself into a working piano. I think we can agree that to believe I was going to get a piano would be an act of faith.
I don’t mean to knock faith. Faith is good. But it is important, especially in an educational setting, to differentiate which beliefs are based on observational science, which are based on faith, and which are based on a combination of the two.
This is where trickery occurs in public schools and state-funded colleges. Evolutionists have cleverly labeled their story as scientific and anything else as religious and unscientific. This has enabled evolution alone to exist in curriculum under the guise of separation of church and state. But in actuality, the fight for what is taught in schools is not science versus religion. It is faith versus faith.
Faith system A: Evolution
Faith system B: Intelligent Design
Which model makes sense to you?
I find the model of intelligent design to be reasonable as it matches my observations. Bird nests are made by birds, beaver dams are made by beavers, houses, cars and computers, etc. are made by people, and so on. When something looks like it was made, I can trace it to a maker.
A friend of mine has been posting photos of eagles in Michigan. These creatures are marvelous. They are powerful but graceful. While gliding at high altitudes they have such keen vision as to see rodents moving on the ground. That makes me think of all the intricate systems at work within a human being. Vision is just one example. Our eyes are super capable and versatile, and they send a signal to our brains (which are themselves unbelievably magnificent devices). What, in all of human observation, would make it reasonable to conclude these complex systems came about through random processes?
Something to look for in your science classes: Time is a the magical word in the evolution story. Evolutionists say alleged evolutionary changes happened over long periods of time, as if time changes things. It doesn’t. No matter how much time passes, things only change according to mechanisms for change, such as oxidation, for example. I’m now looking out my window at an old birdhouse in the woods. A long time ago when somebody built it it was nice. Now it is worn and falling apart, as is the rusted coffee can beneath it. I don’t see either of these objects experiencing an increase in organization or information. I think they will continue to break down, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I could go on and on, but I hope this has been sufficient to demonstrate that there is a scientific perspective which is totally different from what you are being taught in school. Many scientifically-minded people reject evolution as unscientific and believe that science points to the world and all of biology being the work of a supremely intelligent and creative being.
In all of your studies, I encourage you to think critically, ask tough questions, and demand good answers.
Thank you for reading to the end! I hope this has been useful.