Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Does a New Scientific Study Offer Evidence of Life after Death?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wesley J. Smith writes:

Photo: Life after death, by Christopher Campbell, via Unsplash.

A new scientific study of people whose hearts stopped but received CPR and remained among us found that many remembered what are often called “near-death experiences.” From the NYU Grossman School of Medicine:

One in five people who survive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest may describe lucid experiences of death that occurred while they were seemingly unconscious and on the brink of death, a new study shows. . . .

Survivors reported having unique lucid experiences, including a perception of separation from the body, observing events without pain or distress, and a meaningful evaluation of life, including of their actions, intentions and thoughts toward others. The researchers found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams or CPR-induced consciousness.

The study also detected some brain activity associated with the phenomenon:

A key finding was the discovery of spikes of brain activity, including so-called gamma, delta, theta, alpha and beta waves up to an hour into CPR. Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception.

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called near-death experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” says Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, the lead study investigator and an intensive care physician, who is also an associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health, as well as the organization’s director of critical care and resuscitation research. “Our results offer evidence that while on the brink of death and in a coma, people undergo a unique inner conscious experience, including awareness without distress.”

Life After Death?

Does this prove that there is life after death? No. But I think it is evidence that could support that hypothesis. Indeed, that seems to be what the study authors conclude, at least between the lines:

Identifying measureable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity, together with similar stories of recalled death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, adds Parnia.

“These lucid experiences cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” says Parnia. As the brain is shutting down, many of its natural braking systems are released. Known as disinhibition, this provides access to the depths of a person’s consciousness, including stored memories, thoughts from early childhood to death, and other aspects of reality. While no one knows the evolutionary purpose of this phenomenon, it clearly reveals “intriguing questions about human consciousness, even at death,” says Parnia.

No Natural-Selection Benefit

Or, maybe there is no evolutionary explanation. There is certainly no discernible natural-selection benefit. Moreover, what purpose would such a “soft exit” offer? Why would it appear? How would it develop if consciousness is solely generated by the brain and is purely a materialistic phenomenon?

Perhaps these findings should be deemed circumstantial evidence of something beyond this existence, which moves us out of the scientific realm and into the theological. And — since those reporting on the experience claim to have engaged in an extensive life review — perhaps we should also consider the study as demonstrating that what we do and how we act in the here and now will impact our experience of whatever comes next.

If so, it would be prudent to govern ourselves accordingly, “for nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”

Evolution News

Of course, the study referenced above is by no means the first scholarly investigation into near-death experiences (NDEs). If the testimony of thousands of people who have reported these experiences mean anything, there seems to be consistency with the concept of life after death and a continuing existence of the soul. An in-depth analysis of NDEs that I’ve found helpful is Imagine Heaven, by John Burke.

Comments
Querius at 40, Nope. I don't buy it.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Related @39, The question that a number of scientists have asked is how could we tell if we were living in a very realistic computer simulation. There is indeed some evidence. For example, the Planck length is analogous to the pixels on your computer monitor. Again, Neil deGrasse Tyson on PBS Space Time likes the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58 And then there's what Jesus said about money that's indicative that we're living in an ultra-realistic simulation . . . -QQuerius
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Querius at 38, No evidence of a simulation. What we experience every day is what we experience. Aside from the subatomic quantum world, the things we interact with every day follow certain laws. The quantum world has unusual aspects, and its own rules.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Relatd @34, And other gullible people believe that the universe created itself out of non-existence. Note that both Planck length and the non-infinite speed of light are used as evidence that we live in a simulation. If true, it also supports the idea of life after death, the subject of the OP. How? Imagine people playing an online video game. If their character dies, the player goes on living. However, the players' actions within such a game can reveal a lot about them. Did you know that at least one of the recorded statements of Jesus also supports the idea that we're living in a simulation? Hint: It was about money. -QQuerius
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Does this prove that there is life after death? No. But I think it is evidence that could support that hypothesis. Indeed, that seems to be what the study authors conclude, at least between the lines:
Between which lines might this conclusion lie?
Identifying measureable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity, together with similar stories of recalled death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, adds Parnia.
This is not talking about conscious experience absent brain function. On the contrary, this is assuming that heightened brain activity is responsible for conscious experiences while (not after) the brain is dying. Obviously there is no evidence that anyone has ever experienced anything once the brain permanently ceases to function. Consciousness is easily lost - a bump on the head or the ingestion of certain drugs is all that is needed. It appears most likely, then, that conscious experience does require certain brain function to be active, and this study confirms rather than refutes that assumption. (Full disclosure: I am not a "materialist" in the sense often used here - I don't believe that consciousness can be reduced to, or explained by, physical mechanisms that we currently understand).dogdoc
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
SG at 35, Yes, and I'm one of them.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Relatd: Honestly, it’s easy to come up with a hundred possible scenarios and still not learn anything.
I completely agree. Are you aware that there are even some gullible people who believe that some all-knowing, all loving, non-corporeal being created the universe and all life on earth?Sir Giles
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Querius at 32, Well, I don't think anyone can show a beginning for the universe since there is no physical evidence. In theory, the Planck Length came from nowhere, it gently uh... blew up - not really - and expanded into uh... uh... well, darn it... nothing, I guess. So as far as evidence, they've got nothing. So, all they do have is: The Universe exists. That's it. Speaking scientifically.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Relatd @32, All I'm doing is considering what scientific or derivative logical evidence is available for the origin of the universe. Unlike the Deists of the past, I'm not suggesting that one can arrive at a full knowledge of God simply by extrapolation (which is what Darwinists do regarding the origin of life). Specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim dependence on revealed truth rather than logically derived truth. Such claims can be evaluated with historical, archaeological, and testimonial evidence, which is generally not within the grasp of science. However, archaeological artifacts such as pottery, inscriptions, writings, and ruins ARE subject to scientific examination. So is the Shroud of Turin. Some instances of medical miracles are also within the grasp of science such as this one: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/ And so do some NDEs, going back to the subject of the OP. -QQuerius
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Some alien? Really? Why would an alien do anything like create a universe? How about humans time traveling back into the past from our future? Honestly, it's easy to come up with a hundred possible scenarios and still not learn anything.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Jerry @29 and Relatd @30, Exactly, and here's why: The list I provided comprises reasonable deductions without assuming a god or gods, much less the Christian God. In contrast, Chuckdarwin @28 immediately jumped to the conclusion that I referred to the Christian God, WHICH I DID NOT. The source of the design and emergence of the universe could be some intelligent and powerful alien, or the source could be what's called "an ancestor simulation." Here's a discussion of the possibility that we're in an ancestor simulation with Neil deGrasse Tyson on PBS Space Time, hardly considered a Christian organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58 All Chuckdarwin's immediate emotional response reveals is his psychological projection of lower human nature on an entity that he doesn't understand, perhaps in defense of a selfish lifestyle or a guilty conscience. I'll leave it at that. -QQuerius
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
CD at 28, And more and more evidence of railing against God. Get over it - puny human! If you actually knew anything about God, you would worship Him. As God, there are no other creative entities. Afraid of going to Hell? You should be - including myself and all reading. God loved His creatures - humans - and gave them free will instead of making them ROBOTS. But nooo, they decided to listen to some stranger instead of God. Source: The Bible. Get it. Read it. Don't be a goof...relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
I’m sure I’ve missed a few
All wrong. Trying to get his “sadly mistaken” batting average up to 1000, ChuckDarwin strikes out every time. Nothing ID says is relevant to anything Chuck says. Maybe Chuck should just ask questions since he gets nearly everything wrong. Keep swinging since eventually you will connect. Possibly try bunting.jerry
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
--Its creative power is imperfect and limited because it three times couldn't get humans right --It is vain because it demands worship --It is jealous because it abides no other creative entities --It is vindictive insofar as it allows indescribable suffering (including in the "afterlife") --It is cowardly because it places the blame for its flawed creation on its human creatures I'm sure I've missed a few...chuckdarwin
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Seversky, To paraphrase your statement, non-existence cannot be the cause of the existence of the universe--space-time, mass-energy, quarks, leptons, perhaps dark matter, dark energy, gravity, black holes, etc. So what must be the qualities of whatever caused the existence of the universe? - it must exist outside of time - It must exist outside of the dimensions of space - It cannot consist of mass - It cannot consist of energy - It cannot consist of we can measure in our universe What does it have? - It has superhuman design intelligence - It has inconceivable power - It acts with purpose and has volition - It seems to care about what it created with so much detail, variety, and complexity - It has more complexity and information than anything it created - Humans can contemplate it Anything else you can think of? -QQuerius
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
BA77 One of my favorites. I haven’t read it for a long time……..chuckdarwin
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Seversky@18 As expected, you closed-mindedly skipped over my summary descriptions of observations that do strongly demonstrate the independence of the mind and the brain during NDEs.
(There are) hundreds of independently verified veridical NDEs involving, among many other things, verified observations of the resuscitation team working on their body below, appearances to physically distant family members, and encounters with not-known-to-be-dead loved ones in a spiritual realm (as witness the excellent survey volume “The Self Does Not Die” by Rivas, Dirven and Smit). And there are many other factors, such as the “realer-than-real” intensity and clarity of consciousness in these states.
Your requirement to "show us" a mind separated from its body is a straw man argument of course, since a disembodied mind is presumably invisible, especially to scientific instruments, and in any case NDEs obviously can't practically or ethically be demonstrated or replicated in the laboratory. They are rare and spontaneous occurences usually due to great trauma. Oh well, I guess part of the materialist mythology is the notion that nothing is real unless it can be demonstrated at will and replicated in the laboratory. Your faith in materialism creates a big lacuna in your vision.doubter
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
ChuckyD, not to be too picky with prose and/or poem selection, but since Darwinian materialists hold that free will, personhood, morality, beauty, meaning, and purpose for life, etc.. etc.. are all merely illusory, I think this is a much better poem for Darwinists to be reciting,
A Dream Within a Dream - By Edgar Allan Poe Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
Of note:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
August 2022 - Moreover, to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves are not ‘real’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-recognizing-providence-in-the-history-of-life-is-a-hint-about-our-own-lives/#comment-763046 Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic/materialistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
CD at 22, You just don't quit, do you?relatd
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
BA77 O brawling love! O loving hate! O anything of nothing first create! O heavy lightness, serious vanity! Misshapen chaos of well-seeming forms! Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health! Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is! This love feel I, that feel no love in this. Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1 An oxymoron by any other name.......chuckdarwin
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Again, good questions and still without definite answers. Just bear in mind that kf and I both agree that you cannot get something from nothing. Had there ever been truly nothing, there would still be truly nothing and we would not be here asking such questions The corollary of that position is that there must always have been “something”. For Christians, that something is their God, for agnostics/atheists it’s more of a “don’t know”.
Well that "something" whatever it is/was produced a very fine tuned universe for life. This "something" made choices which indicates something about else about it besides being very powerful and incredibly intelligent. It had an objective. People have wondered about it since man first walked on this world. Whatever it was, it inspired various religions and other beliefs. The incredible thing is how anyone can deny that such a "something" exists.jerry
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1/10
I cannot see how that can be true. Information is medium neutral and therefore multiply realizable: we can recognize a vinyl record, a CD, and an MP3 as all conveying the same information. That doesn’t mean that the information could exist independently of all storage media. So it’s simply not “immaterial” in the sense of existing independent of all physical structures. Shannon does not vindicate Plato.
Exactly so, and the information on the LP, CD or MP3 is placed there by human beings for the purpose of communicating it to other human beings. But that is not always the case. A dendrochronologist can acquire information about the history of a tree from the growth rings in its trunk. A geologist can acquire similar historical information about the Earth from rock strata. It can even be argued that our genomes have incorporated information abstracted from our environments over the millennia. But there is no good reason to think that there was an intelligence behind any of those sources of information that was trying to communicate something to us. My understanding, for what it's worth, is that we acquire data from various sources which only becomes information when it is incorporated into an internal model or organized according to an internal narrative. Information in its common usage is what we are informed by. There are more technical usages but they do not mean the same thing.Seversky
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Seversky at 16, "To confront the issues that ID/creationists dare not?" Oooh, sounds important. So, YOU take the >>risks<<< and confront the issues that... ? Seriously? You attach a little too much importance to yourself. Or to put it another way: Pffft.relatd
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Doubter/14
All of this is very much not to be expected by the materialist neurological paradigm when the brain is largely disfunctional but still expected by the materialists to produce such extraordinary experiences as complex hallucinogenic illusions. Very much against the materialist neurological assumption that the mind is the function of large parts of the brain, in particular the cerebral hemispheres.
Show us a conscious mind existing separate from a physical brain and you have a case. Until then we have to go by what we observe, which is that when the brain ceases to function the associated consciousness disappears.Seversky
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Jerry/11
What does immaterial and physical mean?
Good question. Could BA77 be equivocating on the different meanings of "materialism" and "physicalism"?
The statement implies that immaterial means non existence and that only the physical universe that we observe is all that exists. Where did the physical universe come from? Does it have a cause? Maybe that cause is best described as immaterial
Again, good questions and still without definite answers. Just bear in mind that kf and I both agree that you cannot get something from nothing. Had there ever been truly nothing, there would still be truly nothing and we would not be here asking such questions The corollary of that position is that there must always have been "something". For Christians, that something is their God, for agnostics/atheists it's more of a "don't know".Seversky
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Relatd/15
My role as apologist for Ba77? And your role here?
To confront the issues that ID/creationists dare not?
Along with AF, JVL and Seversky? You guys are just the ‘natural order of things’ here?
Of course. We're not exclusive. We're all a part of the natural order, even you and BA77.Seversky
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
CD at 9, My role as apologist for Ba77? And your role here? Along with AF, JVL and Seversky? You guys are just the 'natural order of things' here? And IDers are the outliers? Just because I have read and agree with Ba77's carefully worded posts does not mean I'm voting for him in the next election. I could write: 'You're nothing but a secularist noisemaker!' but I'd rather not.relatd
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin@9 As usual the skeptic materialists complacently ignore very many facts, in order to desperately hold onto their secular religious faith in materialism. Facts such as there being hundreds of independently verified veridical NDEs involving, among many other things, verified observations of the resuscitation team working on their body below, appearances to physically distant family members, and encounters with not-known-to-be-dead loved ones in a spiritual realm (as witness the excellent survey volume "The Self Does Not Die" by Rivas, Dirven and Smit). And there are many other factors, such as the "realer-than-real" intensity and clarity of consciousness in these states. All this experienced with a largely disfunctional greatly oxygen-deprived brain with negligible or greatly reduced neuronal processing (in the brain stem for instance). And there are the many long-term positive character/personality transformations towards higher spirituality occuring later in the life of the NDEer. All of this is very much not to be expected by the materialist neurological paradigm when the brain is largely disfunctional but still expected by the materialists to produce such extraordinary experiences as complex hallucinogenic illusions. Very much against the materialist neurological assumption that the mind is the function of large parts of the brain, in particular the cerebral hemispheres.doubter
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
PMI, "That doesn’t mean that the information could exist independently of all storage media." See post 3, 'Quantum Teleportation'.bornagain77
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
ChuckyD, you, by your own inept argumentation, are a far better apologist for Intelligent Design than any ID advocate is. :) For instance ChuckyD states, "Mockery is a legitimate rhetorical device",,,
rhetoric - definition language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
Welcome to world of Darwinian apologetics where mockery and ridicule is held to be a 'legitimate rhetorical device' and where that, ahem, 'legitimate rhetorical device' takes the place of any actual empirical evidence that might refute the empirical evidence I presented to support the 'physical reality' of, and/or existence of, the immaterial soul. Moreover, the heavy reliance of Darwinists on a self-admitted 'rhetorical device', and not on any compelling scientific evidence, supports my overall position that whatever Darwinian evolution is, it certainly is NOT an empirical science. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter to the validity of their 'theory' (as if Darwinism even deserves to be called a scientific 'theory'),
1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. 2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. 3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. 4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” 9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. 10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! 11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. 12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. 13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! 14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
November 9, 2022
November
11
Nov
9
09
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply