Building on a Cracked Foundation: Darwin in light of Kant’s demise


This post has been merged into Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism.

 

Presumption is powerful.

 

Immanuel Kant reasoned that an Infinite Being could only be reflected in nothing less than an infinite universe. -1- His reasoning was presumptuous. Nowhere in the Scriptures was such a requirement given. Nonetheless, his hypothesis became well-received until it became recognized as a theory. This idea of an eternal, infinite universe became the basis of Darwinism, the steady state model and a host of other cosmological heresies requiring billions and billions of years.

 

I like how Hugh Ross put it: “By the end of the nineteenth century [Kant’s cosmological model] was cast in concrete. The concrete began to crack, however, almost before it dried.” -2-  

 

Of course, the Big Bang gave us a beginning to the universe and an end to the idea of limitless time in which evolution, or anything else needing such a time-scale to overcome probabilities for that matter, could take place.

 

Looking back to Kant, it’s amazing that more theologians did not object to his model. You see, if God created an infinite universe, He could not exist outside of it. That being the case, He would be bound by it, by time, by its laws. Miracles would be impossibility and, I daresay, so would answered prayer.

 

On another note, since Darwin’s theory was based in a large part on a universe of limitless time in which natural selection could work its magic, it’s no small wonder that his theory is showing considerable stress as its proponents attempt to shore up its weaknesses. In the end, I believe, it will be shown to be just another theory cast in concrete only to crack and crumble away.

 

–Sirius Knott

 

  Read more about Darwin’s Dyke, posts that explore the weaknesses of Darwinism!

-1- Immanuel Kant, “Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens,” Theories of the Universe, ed. Milton K Munitz (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957), page 240.

 

-2- Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1993), pg. 45

Advertisements

2 Comments Add yours

  1. emoose says:

    Dude:
    I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but you are not quite making sense. Just because the universe has a starting point(big bang) and an ending point(heat death) ,how does that disprove Darwin. You are still talking about a huge chunk of time. It certainly makes more sense than the six day idea that Creationists have taken from Genesis. Or am I mistaken? I await your wisdom.

    Emoose

  2. Sirius says:

    Actually, we weren’t discussing Creationism at all during this post, but I’ll be happy to elaborate on the viability of a 6 day Creation anyway. If we presume that God exists [just as easily as materialists and determinists presume that God does not exist], 6 days is a piece of cake, especially for a Deity who exists outside of time.

    A Deity existing outside of time is free to go slower than the speed of light [go forward in time], go faster than the speed of light [go backward in time] or travel equal to the speed of light [at which point time freezes]. This being the case, He could spend an eternity on a single detail before moving on to something else. [This, by the way, is the scientific underpinnings of God’s ability to answer every prayer ever uttered.] He could move the frame of time forward and backwards, eliminating timelines He didn’t like, basically directing the path of history. He could also speed up the film, fast forwarding to the good part, so to speak. After all, there was no one else to watch the film until He created us, so why not?

    You see, the question isn’t whether it took 6 days, but why only six? I’d positively love to know the answer to that one!

    Anyway, in answer to your more pertinent question, the Big bang implies a beginning [heat death has nothing to do with anything, except that it makes an oscillating universe well nigh impossible for lack of available fuel, elasticity and order]. That means the universe has an age, as opposed to being ageless with limitless time. This limits the amount of time available for matter to come to be, for galaxies to form, for the conditions for life even be conceivable to be met and for life to evolve to its present state. While we still have tons of time, it simply isn’t enough time for life to develop by chance and purely mechanistic processes.

    I suggest The Creator & the Cosmos by Hugh Ross if you’d like to read some of the reasons why.

    — Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s