Stephen Hawking's Favourite Fairy Stories & Other Tales...

It is funny how selectively blind the world is to reason and logic. It is funnier how the people that they exalt perpetuate and entrench such blindness. Or not so funny.

One would hope that Hawking et al would open the door of their hearts to objective consideration considering terminal illness, no matter how long they eventually live. Unfortunately Professor Hawking shows no sign of following suit of many great thinkers throughout history and applying his mind to all the glaring observations of science that necessitate a creator.

He said this in a May 2011 interview: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail...There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark".

Well, this of course begs the question of who made the computer? The truth is the brain is infinitely more complex than a man-made computer. Before Professor Hawking disputes the existence of a soul, immortality of the soul, or a place of existence of the immortal soul, he must of course first explain the naturalistic origins of the brain - which he cannot do. It is incredibly puerile to say those who believe in or have experienced heaven hold to a fairy story. One could easily point to Hawking's faulty analogy of the inorganic, man-made computer and the organic, logical product of an higher intelligence than man as a 'fairy story'.

This excerpt also caught my attention: 'When asked what is the value of knowing why we are here, Hawking replied , "The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value". I use my scientific prerogative and beg to differ. If you are a secular humanist/Darwinist then there is no value to being here what so ever, as value itself is an abstract concept that a naturalistic universe cannot determine.

If Hawking was the great Physicist that is he is held-up to be, then he should clearly see that Darwinism is not effective, sufficient to explain origins or a good historical gauge of what is generally accepted as valuable by civilised people. Neither is the universe governed by 'science' - it is governed by the providence of God through the laws He has put in place - by 'science' Hawking is means the secular humanist world-view. He could easily have said it is governed by 'nature' or God, but he wants to sound authoritative and empirical and definitely not like a theist. Unfortunately he is far from empiricist; as happened to Peter, his speech betrays him.

He says that "science tells us we can't solve the equations directly in the abstract", but the real statement here is that his pre-conceived secular humanist world-view won't allow him to employ logic or true empiricism, like mathematics. Looking at incredibly complex design and pointing to a transcendent designer is just too 'abstract' for old Stephen. Yet he is not quite empirical enough to crunch the numbers and see that mathematical law rules out unguided naturalistic origins for the universe and its complexity.

Then, either in foolish bravado or a drunken stupor, he bursts out of the Trojan horse of Darwinism and hits the nail on the head. If evolutionists decide, for coherence of argument, that there is such an 'abstract' concept as value then it has to be determined through the cracked, warped and wrongly prescribed lens of Darwinism. Indeed, the value lies in 'higher animals'. Sorry, didn't mean to quote from Mein Kampf, but for brevity's sake it seemed just the point that Hawking was making.

So here we have it, Hawking as Dawkins, as Hitchens as Huxley, doesn't believe in the God he is going to stand before and an eternal destination for his soul (I think for an old sinner it would be better to 'reason' against hell). But he is frank enough to also reveal that the beliefs he holds to lead him to think that the West is of more value than the Two-Thirds world, an over-fed British child is of more value than a starving African one and value can arbitrarily be assigned based on the opinion of a man who believes he is ultimately accountable to no one outside himself.

Well done, world, another of your geniuses manages to kick his own tonsils into touch.

False Correlations of Darwinism

My favourite topic of enquiry regarding creation and the refutation of Darwinism is zoology. Though my studies within it, from a formal perspective, include only an unfinished diploma, I have spent many hours reading, researching and observing the wonder of living things.

One of the fallacies of Darwinism that is rarely mentioned is the supposed correlation between bipedalism and intelligence. In the conventional time-line of human evolution, from monkey to 'modern' man, the assumption is made that increased bipedalism be-gets increased intelligence or vice versa, increased intelligence be-gets increased bipedalism. "Why of course, all four-legged creatures are stupid and all two-legged creatures are smart!", I hear the intellectually neotanised Dawkinites murmur.

That is simply not true. Bears are smarter than kangaroos for one, but it is also not true in view of Darwinian human evolution theory. If the fallacious correlation presented in the pretty pictures of the text books was true then we would find that the more bipedal the ape, the more intelligent. Unfortunately fact, and namely fact by zoological observation, proves otherwise. The smartest ape is not the most bipedal, and the most bipedal is not the most intelligent. Darwinists say "d'oh!


The most intelligent ape, shown by several tests that have included the ability to learn sign language and the ability to grasp gift reciprocity, is the orang utan. The thing about the orang is that it is the most arboreal of the great apes - it spends more time in the trees and is less bipedal than all of the other great apes such as gorillas and chimps. The most bipedal ape is not even a 'great ape', it is the gibbon. The gibbon habitually walks upright when dancing across branches or when on the ground. God made it this way because its long arms that are used for 'brachiating' through the trees are not suitable for the knuckle or wrist walking of the other apes. The gibbon is certainly not the most intelligent ape.

So there we have it, there is no observable relation between bipedalism and intelligence in apes, so how can it be assumed that there was in the fictitious tree of human evolution? Easily, because evolutions are experts at drawing pretty pictures and telling you that something definitely happened, without explaining how. You cannot reasonably posit that Lucy was any more intelligent than her relatives that swung in the trees more than she did.

The other false correlation is brain size and intelligence - inevitably the drawings show the head size increasing from the small head of an ape-like creature to the larger size of homo sapiens. As Dr. Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention observed, if you blow up a gorilla's brain you simply have a huge gorilla brain - it is the wiring of the brain that matters. In fact, gorillas have larger brains than orangs, but do not display intelligence to the same level. It is nothing to do with their size - chimps are smaller than both but have a larger brain than an orang.

These are just two scientifically verifiable observations made amongst living creatures that we can observe, study and test, not dead bones shoe-horned into a pre-conceived world view - now that's science.

A Most Wonderful Witness Part1

I have had two of my greatest witnesses from a point of view of the presentation of truth over the past few days.

The first was at our usual Saturday street outreach. I met an evolutionary biologist called Dr. Sharma, who I had a fantastic time with. We went through the icons of evolution theory and their fraudulent nature, the insufficiency of natural selection to explain origins or even explain speciation, and many other things.

He took me into a book shop to show me a new book on human evolution theory after I questioned the fallacious time-line of human ancestry. It wasn't there, which was a sweet touch to a talk based on the absence of evidence for Darwinism. He insisted to me that Lucy was a direct human ancestor, yet I pointed to the Laetoli tracks that pre-date the supposed existence of Australopithecus Afarensis as an ape-like human ancestor. The very fact that they are the imprints of a normal modern human of above average height completely flies in the face of standard models of the evolution of bipedalism.

The crux was DNA - after he was surprised to learn that Richard Dawkins admitted to evidence of complexity that could have been created by a transcendent intelligence, he admitted that attributing that design to ET was simply postponing the problem. He then attempted to tell me that DNA is not complex and that it simply evolved from less complex forms that were not quite as good. When I asked if that could be shown to me he said that it couldn't as it was all dead.

When I posited that this did not fall within the parameters of scientific enquiry because it could not be observed, studied or tested and that if he could not prove it ever existed then he was holding to it by religious faith I was filled with joy; I had got to one of those magic moments when a secular humanist is found severely wanting in his attempt to distance himself from faith and dogma.

Even though he refused my invitation to our nativity play as 'propaganda', I immediately prayed for his soul, knowing that showing an evolutionist his zealous faith in Darwinism and the fraudulent icons that he uses to prop up this faith, is the first step towards getting him to consider his own fallibility. Shedding light on his own narcissism is a step closer to his heart being open to the ultimate destroyer of foolish pride that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Christopher Hitchens is Dead, Short Live Richard Dawkins

It is sad to hear that Christopher Hitchens has succumbed to cancer and died, because as Ezekiel tells us, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Another sinner standing before the programmer of his DNA and found seriously wanting is not something to rejoice in.

The militant atheists such as Hitchens, Dawkins et al may rejoice when another creationist is off the scene, but I just couldn't find it in me to dance and sing when Mu'ammar Gaddafi was executed on camera, or even when news came that an unarmed Osama Bin Laden had been killed - in like manner this man may have stood against morality and truth but he was still a man and a soul. When you dig into the history of atheists you often find that others are to be indicted in the forming of their world-views - especially education boards and Christians who weren't ready to give an answer for the hope within them.

I say 'short live' Richard Dawkins not because I desire him to die early, but because life is a vapour and all flesh is as grass - here today and gone tomorrow. I for one don't want to spend 62 adult years using my reason and logic to argue against the only logical source of the ability to think and reason. Hitchens is gone, but Dawkins will be soon too; in 150 years none of us will be here.

Why Dawkins should post a brief, sentimental message on Twitter just doesn't make sense in either of their world-views. If Dawkins has evolved complex emotions and sociological abilities through the convoluted and tedious process of millions of years of random chance, then joy should spring forth as he realises that another conglomerate of chemicals that was competing with him for air, food, sexual partners etc, has expired.

He is completely unwarranted to feel any emotional connection or affection for one who was not a member of his family unit or a sexual partner. Pseudo-intellectual crusades against the God that made their soul certainly didn't do anything for their genome. Hitchens dying of cancer and Dawkins not in the best health points towards being a bitter atheist as not particularly good for your evolutionary survival.

Dawkins finished of his tribute by saying that Hitchens crusaded against 'all tyrants, including God (sic)'. The very fact that the 'Four Horsemen', including Dawkins and Hitchens, could run around spouting trite logical fallacies without immediate judgement points towards a long-suffering and graceful Lord who while they were yet in sin, died for them.

I don't know what it would take for Dawkins to get saved, or even if he is not too far gone to hear truth, but I sure would like to meet him and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to him. I know how lost these men are, but I also know the power of His Word.

Ni Pigano

Tutaposema juu ya vitu vya Shetani lazima tunafahamu ni pigano.

Upande wa sisi kuna nguvu, na upande wa yey kunu nguvu. Kama Shetani atatumia nguvu yake lazima tutatumia nguvu yetu pia. Iko kama Kenya na Somalia sasa - KDF vs. al-Shabaab: Shetani anatamani moto hapa au mlipuko huko kwa kushtua sisi, lakini Biblia inasema pigano si wetu, ni pigano wa Mungu - anaweza kuleta nguvu zaidi, hata nguvu wa Roho Mtakatifu kushinda matendo ya Shetani.

Sasa wanajeshi wa Kenya wanapiga, wanakamata. Tutaomba kwa wanajeshi wa Kenya na kuruhusu sisi kuomba kwa sisi na pigano yetu kwenye ufalme wa Shetani. Najua hii - itakuwa ushindi.

I've Got a Book about That Somewhere...

A few weeks back I was about to witness to a man standing outside of a shopping mall smoking (the man, not me) when a young Muslim heard me mention Jesus Christ and stopped.

I knew he was looking for a debate, but since I have learned better than that, I decided to engage him;-) If you think you will win souls bound in Islam by debates alone then you are very wrong. We need God to be involved. I entertained a distraction to witnessing to someone else because I genuinely felt that God was involved with this new encounter.

To cut a long story short, everytime I countered his false ideas, fed to him by some demonised Muslim teacher who is perpetuating false-hoods regarding Christianity, he responded that that was simply my opinion and what he held to was true. I of course said that I was bringing truth to him, not offering an alternate opinion to be accepted or rejected, but throwing life-lines of hope to someone bogged down in a mire of false religion.

Probably the strongest fact that topples Islam is that though it claims to be the continutation of the biblical narrative there is absolutely no record of the mention of Islam before Mohammad. Though Muslims claim that all the prophets were Muslim and that they worshipped allah (al-illah - the god), all our solid, empirical evidence shows us that they were Hebrews and worshipped YHWH, culminating in Christ Himself who revealed in John 8 that He was the manifestation of the great I AM, as God the Son in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16).

I recommended he take a trip to the British Museum to see the artefacts for himself, but he declined and said that he had " a book about that somewhere". Hmm, wonder if he ever did find that book afterwards...

Showed by the Code

There absolutely is God. I believe in Him by faith, but HE IS because He is I AM, not because I believe in Him. He is self-existent and eternal, needing not to be created as He is transient to creation.

Something that struck me while listening to an excellent Pastor Harold Warner sermon called 'Fool's Gold' was the fact that there is indisputably a God because of DNA. This is just one sound argument of many, to wobble those gripping tightly to a self-erected pedestal of self-will.

DNA is code. It isn't the things that it is the instructions to build, but the information to build them. It is entirely abstract. Represented by the letters A,C,G,T, the most complex molecule in the universe is not a cell, but it contains the code to build them; it is not a protein, but contains the code to build them; it is not an animo acid, but contains the code to build them. In other words, if all living things contain this code, they could not have been produced without it (and DNA can obviously not code itself out of nothing or even be free-standing).

Code must have a coder to write it - it is symbolic, not naturalistic and material. Computer code has produced all you see on this screen, but needed a programmer to create the code to produce physical, recognisable pictures. It means nothing on its own without intelligence behind it deciding what to represent.

God decided what DNA was going to represent and produce; the code it was going to carry. Naturalistic means cannot produce abstract information that means something beyond itself, for to the evolutionist, there is nothing beyond natural existance. We can think abstractly because we have a higher than natural intelligence to put physical things into symbols - we have a soul of supernatural, creative origin.