The Non-Evolution of Man

This essay started out in life as an appendix.  It then unfolded into this article.  Or did it evolve?  In any case, its origin was to cover a narrow issue in the parent article that dealt with the nonexistence of space aliens.  Specifically, the coverage was a terse overview of human evolution used to rule out certain possible types of space aliens.  That section was not expanded further.

The addition was a response to a proof that first principles demonstrate that evolution is impossible.  But that contradicted the possibility asserted in the overview.  Said proof is fundamentally sound in all respects except for one, and it remains valid regarding natural evolution.  The problem is that it cannot rule out “intelligent” evolution, which was the underlying premise of the critique against human evolution.

As the evolution question and surrounding issues are important, it was pulled out of the original article and expanded into this separate essay.  With this brief outline, let's begin with the original short exposé on human evolution.

The Living God created everything, in particular, all living things.  Living creatures were established over time, and there was a progression in complexity as life became increasingly advanced.  While natural evolution provides an adequate explanation of variation and adaptation of the various species, it fails vitally concerning their origin.  Entropy and statistics demonstrate that a great intelligence is at work that defies random mutations and natural selection. 

Yet, it can and really should be supposed that God accomplished the origin of species within nature because that is precisely what He created.  This entails an ordering of nature with infinite precision since that is what it would take.  Of course, as God does everything perfectly, this amazing but rather “crazy” level of detail is the norm.

For example, to form one species from another, certain genes must be modified, say via bursts of precisely aimed cosmic rays.  This could be incremental until the required genes are contained within the gene pool.  Judicious breeding would subsequently result in the new species.  But this is the antithesis of random, particularly as the necessary total changes are substantial.

Alternatively, the new genes could be formed by suspending the laws of nature.  In any case, the mechanism chosen by the Lord is unknown.  However, considering the intricacy of the problem, natural evolution is much closer to mythology than theory.

Nevertheless, the secular world presents evolution as a scientific fact with a confidence far beyond what today’s best AIs can muster, based on the meagerest of fossil evidence and the murkiest of dating (regarding humans).  This is a difficult problem where only so much can be expected from true science, though the topic is particularly contentious when man becomes the subject.

The purported evolution of ape-like primates into man started about a million years ago, with names like Dryopithecus and Ramapithecus, ending with Homo sapiens.  The theory is based on the various migration waves out of Africa, such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.  This all ended with the appearance of Cro-Magnon about 43,000 to 37,000 years ago.

The DNA evidence and anthropological finds do glue the theories somewhat together, while also suggesting the possibility of cross-breeding.  The Neanderthals are generally considered pre-human, with Cro-Magnon as the first humans.  But suddenly, Cro-Magnon suffers extinction, and Europe is repopulated with “modern man.”

No one knows why cavemen are not called cave people.  But the non-cave people were farmers and ranchers and built cities – you know, like humans.  The evolutionists argue that the discovery of agriculture, domestication of animals, and iron, then bronze, explains how man finally had the means to develop civilization: something previously impossible when all their time was spent hunting and gathering.  And granted, glaciers do tend to end the party, evidently being the result of global cooling caused by excessive hunting and gathering.

Catholics should be appreciative of secular evolutionists for their contributions to comedy.  But they should be much more appreciative of two particular dogmas, recalling that God’s revealing is no match for man’s educated guessing.  The first is that Adam and Eve are the complete source of the human race.  The second is that Adam and Eve were immortal.

Two supernatural acts are implicated in these dogmas.  The first involves the creation of an immortal soul, which possesses a supernatural dimension via the endowment of sanctifying grace.  The second involves the formation of an immortal body.  Why this is outside the natural order is conjectured below.

The Council of Trent raised to dogma¹ the immortality of man in the state of original justice.  It stems from “For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death²” and “For the wages of sin is death³.”  The dogma states this is literally true: death entered the world directly because of Original Sin.  Specifically, man will now suffer death.

There are no creatures (with the biological complexity of mammals) that have a multi-century lifespan, much less with a potentially infinite bodily existence.  Nor is there any evidence that such creatures ever existed.  For their existence, especially primates, would require an impressive genetic hat-trick of natural evolution that defies, well, natural evolution.

For immortality, the wear and tear of the joints and all body parts and systems would require continuous rejuvenation.  This must work not just hundreds of thousands or even billions of years, but forever: though possibly growing a new set of teeth every few centuries.  Yet, how could the present physical universe even support that?  It would require a substantial genetic code change, to say the least.

Regarding Adam and Eve, it may be asked if God could have employed some DNA magic on the Cro-Magnon people, resulting in a baby Adam and Eve who then were infused with human souls.  An incremental dormant gene pool formation is theoretically possible, with the final and hence smaller changes required for immortality reserved for Adam and Eve.  God could easily accomplish that, or, for that matter, the statistically more radical scenario of dual massive genetic changes.

However, it would be quite monstrous.  Not so much the violation that natures generate the same nature, but rather, the biological parents of Adam and Eve were pure animals that raised the first humans.  Alternatively, they could have been whisked off to the Garden of Eden and reared by God.  On the other hand, the Biblical account is much more sweeping in terms of supernatural intervention.  Especially as it narrates the formation of Eve directly from Adam.

So what did God do?  Either would be simple for Him.  Science would favor evolution since it is the “less” impossible.  Theology would select the latter as Man is the pinnacle of Creation, which yields theological appropriateness of a special creation.  What the Lord revealed are the two dogmas.  Their scientific implication reduces science to silence, though often enough to babble.  That leaves theological appropriateness as the most probable (and there are many other theological considerations, including the Bible’s literal interpretation must be the principal one – regarding the substance of the revelation).

In other words, a literal interpretation of Genesis wherein God directly formed Adam and then Eve as adults, independent from other living things.  As creatures, being based on the already established DNA system would be natural.  Significantly, Holy Writ attests to an extreme longevity of the first humans as the gift of immortality wasn’t withdrawn fully immediately, which is typical of how God usually acts.

Also, notice the existence of Adam and Eve is in accord with science as “modern man” just appeared (without adequate explanation given), wherein the time range from anthropology and Genesis is roughly the same, although both are rather loose.  The supernatural intervention conclusion won’t be further examined.  Rather, the parent essay’s point that “early man” was not man at all will be expounded.

  The question will be limited to intelligence.  In particular, did Cro-Magnon have the capacity for spoken language?  This is often denied for Neanderthals as evidence indicates an inferior hearing due to the lack of the third inner ear bone.

There is virtually ubiquitous agreement that speech is the dividing line between man and other animals.  But this is for known animals.  “Early man” is largely an unknown.  Neanderthals are celebrated for their cave paintings, which demonstrate a substantial imitation ability.  Cro-Magnon was superior.  However, nothing indicates any room for improvement.

Cro-Magnon was around about 20,000 years ago.  Natures don’t change.  If they had existed as long as Neanderthals (about 400,000 years), everything points to they would still be in the Stone Age.  It is somewhat reasonable to conjecture that Cro-Magnon could talk.  But talking for 20,000 years without accomplishing much indicates a very limited speech capacity associated with a corresponding limited intelligence.  In other words, a nature that was not human.  To reiterate: cavemen were not men.

 

As the error of natural evolution has permeated everywhere, including Catholic thinking, it is worthwhile to examine evolution more closely.  It was claimed above (in terms of the material dimension) that life probably originated within nature.  At a minimum, this is entirely possible.  However, Father Chad Ripperger wrote a book⁴ in 2012 stating evolution is metaphysically impossible.  Later in 2017, he wrote a shorter article “almost entirely” based on the book, which provides direct internet access.  The argument is based on first principles.  But does the argument fall apart when the first principles are applied to creation as a whole, not just to specific parts?  Moreover, does it fail when the micro-level is considered and not just a macro-level evaluation?

The primary concept is “the principle of sufficient reason, ontological formula” with the shortest definition given as “the existence of being is accountable either in itself or in another.”  This is often colloquially paraphrased as you cannot give what you don’t have.  Now, like separating the sheep from the goats, the oxygen in a room could spontaneously move to the right side with the nitrogen moving to the left.  This is possible but the improbability is staggering.  In brief, it will never happen since gases naturally defuse into a uniform mixture (ignoring gravity) with only tiny variations remaining that stem from the “random” collision of molecules.

  Similarly, life could just jump out of a soup of amino acids.  This may be even more likely, but it remains virtually impossible.  But not if the deck is stacked, because then it is a given.  Stacking the deck entails ordaining the requisite molecules to be proximate with high-energy particles to trigger the proper chemical reactions, to cite just one mutation mechanism.  A very delicate stacking would be needed, though this could be a multi-step process to ease the stacking requirements within nature.

Yet, could the universe actually be thus stacked?  Any local system will be highly constrained, leaving stacking very limited.  Local radioactive decay could juggle things to some extent.  Or would cosmic rays also be needed?  Mutations from purely chemical causes are actually very common.  Yet, a large universe may well be needed to provide the necessary degrees of freedom.  This obviously won’t be proven here in terms of mathematically expressed physics, but that God could establish the necessary order by creating a physical universe supporting it will be demonstrated below.

The point is that such stacking conforms with the principle of sufficient reason.  It also conforms with the second law of thermodynamics: physical systems become increasingly disordered.  Ripperger argues against evolution using this last point in a podcast about space aliens (see 9:22).  But again, it doesn’t account for deck stacking.  In brief, the initial conditions of the universe could be such as to account for life on earth (humans being excluded for theological reasons stated above).

Ripperger also cites “the principle of proportionate causality: the effect cannot be greater than the cause,” which is also compatible with stacking.  Two others are “the principle of resemblance: every agent produces a thing that is in some degree like its own form” and “the principle of operation: operation follows upon being.”  These two, with a little reflection, are not violated by stacking either.  In fine, everything physically possible better be metaphysically possible as well…

Deck stacking is related to intelligent design.  The existence of God can be deduced from nature because its inherent complexity indicates that a great intelligence must have established it.  This proof goes by several names, including intelligent design.  A precision watch is one analogy used in these arguments.  Deck stacking is simply a means that God could have employed to create such a “watch,” and actually, He can only create a precision “watch.”

The problem with applying metaphysics to natural evolution is that extremely improbable events cannot be eliminated.  The pivotal point thus becomes the concept of random.  Natural evolution is based on random events, specifically mutations and even natural selection itself, to some extent.  The required random events can be safely dismissed as virtually impossible per their hyper-improbability.  But in the mind of many evolutionists, the assertion of “random” is equivalent to the non-existence of God.  To that extent, natural evolution is a heresy.

Deck stacking is the antithesis.  Here, a hyper-intelligence establishes evolutionary certainty.  Ripperger’s argument is against evolution in general.  It is valid for natural evolution, but fails with “intelligent” evolution.  Namely, life can naturally spring from matter – without suspending the laws of nature by means of the miraculous.  There are actually two cases: the creation of life and the evolution of life, but both are possible with a stacked deck.  This conclusion, of course, is restricted to the material side of life.

The concept of randomness with respect to causation also requires some discussion.  The prevalent opinion in modern physics is that quantum mechanics is stochastic, i.e., random.  However, the math can be written in a deterministic manner, which means quantum mechanics is not necessarily random.

Yet, the physical world must be causal since the King of the Universe rules supreme.  However, that doesn’t mean the laws of physics must be deterministic in the mechanical sense.  Namely, each portion of matter could have its own unique law.  For example, every electron has a unique behavior, different from every other electron⁵, albeit very close.  The physical laws at the macro level would still be primarily deterministic, yet subject to rare statistical exceptions.  But at the atomic levels, the physical laws would appear as having randomness as described by quantum mechanics.

This effectively demonstrates the claim that God could design a physical universe that supports “intelligent” evolution.  Namely, a physical universe providing the necessary degrees of freedom needed for deck stacking could be constructed via a modified version of Leibniz’s Monadology, wherein each smallest unit of matter has its own law yet remains subject to a higher law, but only stochastically, as outlined above.

Here, all physical events are causal when viewed as an enumeration.  However, the enumeration is the rule unto itself because no relational reduction is possible when describing the unique part of the physical law associated with each “monad.”  But when viewed experimentally, every physical event is nondeterministic.  Namely, there is no finite mathematical formula that exactly defines the behavior.  Only stochastic formulas can be written that incorporate the randomness arising from the unknown.

  While not rigorous, it is an intuitive proof that a sufficient degree of freedom to support deck stacking could be incorporated.  This does not assert that a strictly deterministic solution does not exist.  But one could question if initial conditions alone would suffice.  Systems have limits: even the Infinite God cannot squeeze out a 3 out of 1 + 1.

This Leibnizian model might describe the created universe.  However, the actual nature of creation cannot be determined because, at some level, it will be impossible to empirically resolve whether the system is deterministic or “random.”  Science cannot answer this question.  Neither can philosophy because both are metaphysically admissible.  And since it isn’t part of Revelation, neither can theology.  Catholic theology can only state that it is causal, but nothing more (with certainty).

In fine, we simply don’t know the inner workings of God’s Creation at the material level.  With the immaterial dimension, we understand even less: pure spirits and souls are much more mysterious.  However, the possibility of each particle having its own law also lends a solution to the problem of free will.

The freedom inherent in an immortal soul could find expression in the material world within the free range provided by the composite system of matter whose parts are not mechanically deterministic.  For man, a composite of soul and body, this translates to mind over matter, or mind coherent with matter if taken from the perspective of God’s foreknowledge of free will.  Of course, this only “solves” the problem of free will per implementation; the greater mystery of freedom of the will remains.

A historic note is appropriate here.  The theory of “natural” evolution by natural selection was independently discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace.  While similar, his theory diverged from Charles Darwin’s from the beginning, and increasingly so, on a few points.

“Skirting the intricacies of natural selection,”⁶ the main difference was Wallace’s view that an intelligence was guiding evolution.  This opposed Darwin’s view that evolution was strictly contained within deterministic physical laws of nature.  Wallace was more aligned with William Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God via the watchmaker analogy.

However, Wallace was a naturalist who was never a Christian, leaving his “intelligent” evolution in a different plane.  Yet, it was nature’s evidence that increasingly convinced him there was an intelligence at work, particularly with man, and that natural selection cannot explain evolution.

 

For Catholics, there is no need here to prove the existence of God or that Creation is His Design.  But where does evolution fit in?  Perhaps the best answer is that it doesn't.  Creation doesn't exist in time ‒ time exists in creation.  But creation doesn't evolve: it is one thing.  The better verbiage is thus that creation unfolds in time.  The Eternal God's perspective is timeless.  Creation is one object wherein everything happens at once.  The Design is complete.  It includes all the various species that will come and go.  In fine, God's Great Design contained everything at the “beginning.”  It simply unfolds in time.

Granted, evolve roughly means develop.  But evolve has a loaded connotation, and how development occurs is ambiguous.  Whereas unfold has at its core meaning: a preexisting whole being revealed.  As such, unfold is the better verb to describe creation as it progresses in time.

Before examining first principles more closely, it is useful to consider the mechanics of genetics, in particular, mutations.  In humans, it is estimated that DNA damage occurs 10,000 times⁷ each day.  The striking thing is that this frequency of damage occurs in each cell of the body, which roughly has 30 trillion cells! 

There are various types of damage and corresponding corrections.  AI assures us that “cells have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to detect and repair DNA damage, ensuring genomic stability.”  In other words, the actual mutation rate is relatively small.  Without delving into great detail, many of these DNA lesions result from transcription, which deals with gene expression.

Briefly, transcription is the process of duplicating a segment of DNA into RNA, which is then used to synthesize a protein or for some cellular process.  It involves partly unwinding the double-helix DNA at the transcription start site so that a single strand can be operated on.  After some organic chemistry magic, an exact copy⁸ of the DNA's nucleotides is made, whereupon the DNA is restored to its original state.  Transcription occurs numerous times each day, making the life of a cell quite involved, and things can go awry.

But there are other sources of mutations.  Radiation, including UV light and gamma rays, can cause mutations.  And there are many chemicals that act as mutagens.  Genes can be inserted, deleted, moved, and modified.  Moreover, there are also various repair mechanisms that can fix erroneous DNA.  This includes restoring damaged genes based on the original gene still present in the opposite strand of the double helix, which ingeniously encodes the information twice, providing stability.

In terms of size, the 23 human chromosomes contain about 3 billion base pairs⁹ (the smallest unit of genetic information).  Regarding inheritance, only germline cell mutations are important since these are the cells that form the gametes (eggs and sperm).  In terms of rate, humans pass on an average of 60 mutations to their children.  With this rough outline, let's consider the deck stacking necessary to go from one species to another, based on these quantities.

The required number of changes is large.  These changes would span all chromosomes and a fair number of gene modifications within each.  Thousands upon thousands of modifications within the billions of base pairs are needed.  Moreover, the repair mechanisms must either be inhibited or function defectively to contribute to the desired result.  Some measure of time is allowable, but the underlying problem remains.  This is akin to the alignment of the planets for about 100 billion atoms.

This “solar system” is the microscopic world of the DNA alone.  Just the proximate atoms bring the tally to trillions.  Now, consider this for the entire cell and then up to the complete animal.  Then zoom into the subatomic world, and then further into the smaller quarks.  This massively complex system is for a single animal, on Earth, a single planet within the immense universe, at a specific point in time.

Finally, contemplate the chain of events that led to the conditions of this DNA change.  This starts at the beginning of time, rippling through billions of years before the precise effects come together, resulting in a new species.  Obviously, this precise stacking of the deck would require immense intelligence.

Materially, this is an extremely difficult problem, but creation as a whole must account for immaterial effects from souls, the good and bad Angels, and men, plus direct divine intervention.  Traditionally, the whole gamut is called Divine Providence, which completely encompasses God’s Creation, including the foreknowledge of freewill.  God has no choice but to completely stack the deck because He is the first cause of everything created, even the deep mystery of free will.  While nothing new has been said here, the deck has been stacked with the proper philosophical conclusions ready to unfold.

Ripperger argues that all essences must exist at the beginning of creation.  This is true enough, but the disagreement is how they exist: explicitly or implicitly.  It is clear from the above that God’s Design could include the essences of all living creatures implicitly via a global encoding, albeit one having staggering complexity and exactness.  Here, creatures don’t initially exist, although their DNA is encoded within the universe as a whole.

This is the long-winded answer to why the principles of sufficient reason and proportionate causality are not violated by deck stacking.  The other alleged violations similarly disappear.  For example, the principle of resemblance is not violated when viewed at the proper level: DNA is DNA regardless of the species.  Moreover, molecules are molecules...  In general, it is a question of applying first principles to their proper object, which isn’t necessarily the macro-objects conceived in antiquity or the Middle Ages.

The contention that all essences must explicitly exist from the beginning has a curious consequence: the dinosaurs, man, and everything else must have been effectively created all together.  This results in a flip side of evolution: Young Earth Creationism, where the cosmos is said to be only a few thousand years old.  But this is off topic from the main question.  The associated discussion for this has been placed in Appendix A: though without guarantee said appendix won't unfold, evolve, explode, etc., into an essay of its own at some future date.

Yet, of significance, there is another dimension regarding explicit verses implicit essences: is this singular or plural?  A primary feature of quantum mechanics is entanglement.  This denotes that it is impossible to fully describe two entangled particles separately because such a pair can only be fully described when treated as a single unit (quantum state), regardless of whether the particles are separated by an enormous distance.

Entanglement is common.  A dog sitting next to a cat could well share entangled particles: this entails they have the same essence.  That is, it would be metaphysically impossible to separate the dog from the cat because two distinct full descriptions do not exist.  Moreover, it is likely that everything is entangled, which would result in a single essence for the entire universe.

Granted, entanglement is an accidental that generally can be ignored since its force is typically insignificant.  But for the case at hand, deck stacking, the entanglement accidents become indispensable.  Furthermore, it is proper for the universe to be created in an entangled state since this is an intrinsic part of physical nature.  Hence, one inseparable essence with one grand implicit definition that unfolds into all creatures over time yields what can be prudently considered an integral good, in part, because it inherently contains development itself: a hallmark of the created order.

More fun.  Thomists maintain that the soul provides the substantial form for the body.  But human bodies will virtually inevitably be entangled.  The conclusion is evident.  Duns Scotus was right: matter can have multiple forms, potentially countless but generally at least two.  Note: a human body could be entangled with a meteor that is light-years away…

Modern physics is complex.  Briefly, the quantization inherent in blackbody radiation, wave/particle duality, and other phenomena broke the classical phase space model.  The new model is generally described as a Hilbert space of states with self-adjoint operators, unitary transformations, etc.  Regarding entanglement, “the quantum state of the composite system cannot be factored as a tensor product of states… Instead, it is a superposition of tensor products of states of component subsystems.”  If this is not clear as mud, consult the accompanying formulas.

Attempting some intelligibility, quantum mechanics is described in mathematical formalisms.  These are rigorous expressions, but they may not describe the actual underlying physical reality.  Is entanglement real?  Surely, regardless whether a “true” system is ultimately discovered that is different from the math that predominates today – classical physics simply cannot express the observed quantum phenomena.

Finally, why can’t spiritual substances themselves be entangled?  As the immaterial is effectively indescribable to begin with, there is no rational reason to exclude from the governance of its being some form of entanglement.  Namely, God has the power to establish it.

Balking at immaterial entanglement?  Granted, it is a strange possibility, but no less strange than quantum entanglement, which was probably universally unanticipated before its discovery.  Yet, in one sense, immaterial entanglement is a certainty, within a Leibnizian model to boot. 

Namely, isn’t this a characteristic feature of grace?  Undoubtedly, the meriting and distribution of divine grace is governed by the Divine Mind in a non-computable manner, to say the least.  With this in consideration, to repeat, the essence of creation is thus one inseparable thing wherein all objects are marvelously intertwined (entangled) from the perspective of the Eternal and Unchangeable God.

While deferring an exposition on quantum metaphysics with entangled forms to a different space/time quadrant (arguably with necessary future potentiality), it suffices to say now that the apple cart won’t be turned over.  The “classical” notion of separate substances doesn’t dissolve into a puff of logic just because, strictly speaking, they possess a certain inseparability, which evidently impacts the bulk of the matter in the universe, and also impacts spiritual beings (at least minimally) in the sense of grace.

But returning to this sector of the galaxy, the bottom line is that the unfolding view is a completely sound theory of creation.  The Leibnitzian element of particle uniqueness was mostly suggested for the potential necessity to support deck stacking.  But with an enormous, entangled universe, that might not be a necessity.  Particularly considering that entanglement in even macroscopic objects has been demonstrated.

While quantum mechanics is a new field, the experimental evidence is solid.  Albeit numerous details remain nebulous.  What is particularly in question is the interpretation, which spans several fundamental issues.  The most prevalent view is the “Copenhagen” interpretation, which is stochastic (random).  But its notion of measurement entailing the collapse of the wave function (don’t ask) is, well, rather bizarre.

A competing interpretation is the pilot wave theory (e.g., de Broglie–Bohm).  This yields a deterministic system that is non-local¹⁰.  This theory has much goodness, including the direct collapse to classical physics when quantum effects are negligible, and a theory of measure that yields, of all things, measurements.

Philosophically relevant, it has been proven that the pilot wave and “Copenhagen” cannot be distinguished with experimentation.  In other words, whether it is random or deterministic is experimentally unresolvable within these two.

Returning to evolution.  Initially, this was largely accepted.  But soon Darwin’s thesis that natural selection was the primary driving force was widely questioned, with several alternate theories proposed.  In the following decades, the alternative proposals were mostly discarded as the modern synthesis took hold, which was a combination of Darwin’s and Mendel's ideas, and many others as well, over time.  Today, a ‘post-modern’ synthesis has been predicted that will include “revolutionary changes in molecular biology, etc.”

But this field is too large and complex to even outline here.  So instead, for a moment, let us suppose that evolution synthesis will eventually evolve into a theory that is actually correct.  However, wouldn’t that only mean that deck stacking was accomplished within the discovered mechanism of evolution?

Consider such a theory in terms of the big picture.  Namely, it would describe the marvels of life: the intrinsic complexity of numerous systems involved in generating and sustaining life, plus all the means by which new life forms were formed.  Moreover, there is the formation of primordial life itself (of which a DNA starting point is increasingly rejected as being too complex). But as the picture grows larger and more eloquent, so does the improbability that the system itself arose randomly, not to mention the fine-tuned universe hypothesis. 

In other words, doesn’t this supposition become increasingly ridiculous because: how could random mechanisms ever explain it?  This is the thrust of Ripperger’s assertion that evolution violates the principle of sufficient reason.

Orthogenesis was one alternative theory to natural selection.  While taking many forms, it generally denoted some principle within nature that guided processes in a certain direction conducive to evolution.  It was rejected for lack of evidence.

But sufficient reason would require not just a guiding but an intelligent principle within nature, something materialists are convinced that matter doesn’t have, and rightly so.  They are left abandoned to the random and to St. Paul: “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”¹¹

Ripperger reports that scientists have told him off-camera that evolution has various problems, but don’t say so publicly for fear of retribution.  Correspondingly, there is a widespread whitewashing of Alfred Wallace’s criticism of natural selection in many quarters.  In fine, to a dangerously detrimental degree, evolution has a component of state religion verses being pure science.  This atheistic materialism is also exposed by a noted figure in quantum mechanics.  John Stewart Bell asked:

 

“Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?”¹²

 

Moreover, the whole notion of Vitalism is under attack, namely, the idea that there is a vital force that gives life to material things.  The great philosophers¹³ from antiquity believed in the principle of the soul, springing from their investigation into being.  The difference between a rock and an animal wasn’t lost to them.  It was the “Enlightenment” that excreted the catalyst which began to transform animals into minerals with motion.  As supernatural grace is necessary for human fulfillment, the nearly catastrophic present situation stemming from materialism should be of no surprise.

In closing, and to reiterate, this essay’s position is that life (excepting man) probably originated within nature.  God created nature and generally works through it, thus…  The origin of the species could well be the result of some form of intelligent design, something that Ripperger seems to be open to.  The point here is that deck stacking is metaphysically sound.  Hence, the perspective:

Creation unfolds.  Christ rules.