Thursday, July 12, 2012

Controversial Articles in Religion and Science

By Babu G. Ranganathan* (pronounced “Ranga-nathan”)

TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS  Although I am a conservative Christian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional belief of eternal torment or suffering. The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. You may access the article here:

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within biological "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not evolution across biological "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving?  Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition). I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species. You may access the article here:

All real evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (i.e. genes, genetic code) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to perform genetic engineering or to invent entirely new genes via random genetic mutations caused by random environmental forces such as radiation. That’s blind evolutionary faith, not science. When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, over supposedly millions of years, produced entirely new genes (i.e. new genetic code with new genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a belief!

Genetic and biological similarities between different forms of life are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so this is the best explanation rather than common ancestry via random mutations.
What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what variations are genetically possible, not natural selection. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. It's just another term for survival of the fittest.

APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures any more than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks. Read my Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE

"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: We were simply ignorant of its usefulness. Recent research published in journals such as Nature shows that these "non-coding" segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Just because these segments of DNA don't code for proteins doesn't mean that they're useless.

WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. 

EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Some other articles by the author:




*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology from Bob Jones University (the author does not endorse or support everything about the University). Mr. Ranganathan has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East." The author also has completed two years of full-time graduate study in law at Western New England College School of Law. The author’s articles may be accessed at: