Remnant · Scientific Creation · Theology

Free Will and(/or) Predestination

Predestination must be true. So must free will.



Predestination refers to the concept that all events of history are predestined, usually in reference to divine predestination, but also in reference to the concept that the future is theoretically predictable and, thus, unalterable; that is, the idea that, given knowledge of everything in the universe, one could predict the future, because there is nothing in the universe that does not follow the laws of physics.

First note that predestination is a concept; an idea; a theory. Neither atheists nor creationists nor followers of most other major religions completely subscribe as a united block to predestination. Various counterarguments have been proposed from different points of view to prove predestination false. For our purposes, the main comparison to make is that between the Biblical argument of divine free will and the atheistic argument of quantum indeterminacy.

Free Will

The Biblical argument is that of free will, which like predestination is a more general term than its Biblical use. In Biblical contexts free will refers to the concept, confirmed in Scripture, of humanity having free agency to change and affect its future. More generally, free will refers to all beings having free agency to change affect their futures.

Quantum Indeterminacy

Quantum indeterminacy is, like most things starting with ‘quantum’, a complex concept, but it boils down to the idea that, at a very basic levels, quarks, the components of atoms, are unpredictable. The idea is that, since to gather information about something you must observe it by bouncing rays of some sort off it, once the observed thing is small enough, it is impossible to gather all the information about it. This is borne out in reality; you can tell either where a quark is or tell its momentum, but not both at the same time, because to observe one quantity you inevitably alter the other. Thus one cannot have knowledge of everything in the universe, and therefore the universe cannot be predicted, and therefore predestination cannot be true, at least as we know it. Obviously this feels somewhat suspect, but under atheistic beliefs it holds true. The idea needs some altering under Biblical beliefs, though, because an omnipotent God would not need to alter a quark to observe it.

The counterargument I would offer is this: that we know that illogical things are a caveat of omnipotence (God can’t make a rock that he can’t lift, which is not a problem with his omnipotence but rather a necessary facet, just as he cannot make a square circle). It is possible that quark observation could be considered just as illogical as divinely un-liftable rocks, even if it doesn’t feel like it to humans for the simple reason that we have no practical experience or understanding of quantum indeterminacy. There is simply no real way for us to have a practical comprehension of most quantum things; they fall outside the wheelhouse of what our minds are trained to understand.

But Predestination!

It is an inevitable counter-counterargument that the Bible contains examples of what many consider to be predestination (see Proverbs 16:9, Jeremiah 10:23, Acts 13:48). These are complex issues, and I would advise you to seek out all the arguments you can on the topic so as to gain a full understanding of it. Here, though, are a few articles that I commend to your study of free will: an argument that predestination is a man-made doctrine, an overview of predestination and free will, a list of Bible verses relevant to the topic, and an article about the prominent Richard Dawkins’ seemingly contradictory beliefs on the Bible, free will, and comfort against correctness. All these and more have their own light to shed on the fascinating topic of free will and predestination.

At the end of the day, though, this is a problem that nearly every religion, plus atheism, faces in one way or another. For instance, the solution of quantum indeterminacy may soon find threats as advances in the quantum field are made. I cannot make any claim to discovery of the silver bullet that will put the debate to rest once and for all, but rather would make you aware of the debate and lead you towards different solutions and problems, for your own perusal and conclusion-drawing.

Scientific Creation

15 Answers to Evolutionary Nonsense

This article by Scientific American turned 15 this month. It’s one of the most viewed articles offering refutations to creationist beliefs, so it deserves a proper rebuttal on this site.

’15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (its actual name) contains fifteen arguments, but they boil down to three basic logical fallacies:


The strawman argument consists of a false statement of the opponent’s attack, which is then refuted. In other words, it’s putting words in your opponent’s mouth.

The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when an argument starts from one assumption, then proves that assumption by an argument based on the original assumption. For instance, consider the common argument ‘Miracles can’t exist because they’re impossible’.

The no true Scotsman fallacy occurs when the terms are redefined to fit the argument, rather than the reverse. The name comes from this exchange between two imaginary people:

‘No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.’

‘Well, Angus is a Scotsman, and he put sugar in his porridge.’

‘Ah – no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.’

The no true Scotsman argument is a variation of circular reasoning since in this case a ‘true’ Scotsman is defined as one who doesn’t put sugar in his porridge in order to prove that no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

Now, on to the arguments:


1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

The rebuttal here is a circular reasoning argument. It says that evolution is a fact because a fact is ‘an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”.’ Evolution hasn’t and isn’t, but the article goes on to state that ‘the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling’. According to whom?


2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

Perhaps I’m uninformed, but I don’t recall ever hearing this argument. Creationists don’t deny natural selection exists – it’s the driving force behind microevolution (which appears later in the article) – we simply don’t believe that it could cause macroevolution. The chance of any organism making enough advancements in one generation to macro-evolve is simply too low since most of our attributes rely on each other to work. Evolving ears without a new section of the brain to interpret the signals it receives or the complex system to get them through the ear canal will not help an organism at all, and thus it won’t be naturally selected. Natural selection is affirmed by creationists, however, and as such, this is a strawman argument.


3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

The article goes off on a quick tangent about microevolution and macroevolution (slipping in a strong implication that creationists have only recently admitted that microevolution exists) before stating that as there is no proof against evolution, it’s got to be true. This is an argument from ignorance, and it’s at the core of arguments ranging from ‘there’s no proof that aliens don’t exist’ to ‘you can’t prove that there is no God’.


4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

Another strawman argument. I could stop there, but this section of the article is chock-full of fallacies. First, it states that all peer-reviewed biological journals affirm evolution (a no true Scotsman fallacy); then, it outright states that ‘serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent’ – another no true Scotsman. Finally, it heavily implies that evolutionary scientists vastly outweigh the creationists and others, which isn’t true – as I showed previously, evolutionary scientists comprise only 30% of the scientific community.


5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Two strawmen, since creationists are typically well aware that disagreements occur in all areas of science, and the second argument is completely nonexistent. The evolutionary argument is usually very obvious in the second case, which states that monkeys exist in a less evolved state.


7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

There’s not even any attempt at a rebuttal. The reply starts out ‘The origin of life remains very much a mystery…’ before stating that scientists have been able to produce amino acids. As with most mentions of the study, they conveniently don’t mention the paradox of these amino acids needing oxygen to evolve, which then immediately kills them, nor does it mention that both left- and right-handed amino acids were produced, which cannot combine to create life. The article goes on to bring in alien interaction as an example, which is getting closer and closer to the idea of God.


8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

The article rebuts this by saying that it assumes nonadaptive organisms. The argument goes like this:

‘As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet’s). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare’s entire play in just four and a half days.’

Clever – but that’s not what evolution does. Remember, the parts of our body often – if not always – require each other to function correctly. Instead of preserving individual letters, the program should rightly preserve long, complex lines of speech, which is what evolution has to do.


9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

Yet another strawman. The article has a tendency to select arguments from unreputable creationist journals, rather than mainstream ones like Answers in Genesis.


10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

This is mostly true. The rebuttal says it’s not, citing Antennapedia – a gene which creates nonfunctional limbs in fruit flies – as an example. These limbs don’t work, though. There is practically no solid evidence of a mutation ever creating a positive, naturally selectable change. Fruit flies with Antennapedia would not be naturally selected, as their limbs don’t help them – rather, they’re just a dead weight, and shouldn’t exist from an evolutionary point of view, as fruit flies with the mutation would gradually filter out of the population thanks to their increased weight.


11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

A strawman – though not far off from the correct argument, which states that advances can not be made from – for example – fish to humans. New species can appear – we’ve even made some ourselves – but larger genus and family changes are rare if not impossible. To go from one kingdom or phylum to another is impossible.


12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

The article states that it takes too long for us to notice – it’s another argument from ignorance.


13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

The article refutes this by bringing up the ever-popular Archaeopteryx, along with three lesser known supposed transitional fossils. That’s right – over several billion years, we have millions of fossils of animals which exist today and four of supposed transitional fossils. Shouldn’t there be…you know, a few more? As in, a few billion more?

The article then goes on the attack and claims that ‘[creationists] want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group’. That’s another strawman argument, in case you’re counting.


14. Living things have fantastically intricate features–at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels–that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

The article brings up one creationist argument – the complexity of the eye – then rebuts it and acts as if the whole argument is a moot point. Nevertheless, many other complex structures exist that couldn’t have evolved – like the ear, nose, and organs.


15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

And for the last argument, we have a redux on number 14. In fact, it does exactly the same thing, this time rebutting an argument about flagella (long tails stemming from a cell used for motion or eating) which it mistakenly labels ‘flagellae’, betraying a lack of knowledge on the subject. It wraps up the argument by saying:

‘Dembski’s argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences.’

Despite this – and the few, unlikely explanations aside from those two – random process are the evolutionary belief, so refuting them does if not disprove then at least discredit evolution.


The article wraps up with this phrase: ‘”Creation science” is a contradiction in terms’, which speaks volumes about the circular reasoning throughout it. Claims founded on their own arguments are invalid by any measure.

John Rennie, the author of the original post, went on to write articles about global warming and the X-Men. Scientific American seems to be lacking in science these days, which is a far cry from its once great days covering Abraham Lincoln’s patents and Albert Einstein’s relativity.


If you want to help spread the word about ’15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’, please share this post and subscribe to The Remnant.


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Creation and Science

Scientific Creation

Minimum Viable Population

Since the early 1970s, studies have been done to determine the minimum viable population (MVP) of many species, not least among them humans. In more colloquial language, MVP refers to how many members of a species must be present for it to have a 90 to 95% chance of surviving under average condition.

Perhaps one of the most famous MVP calculations in history – though relatively obscure in other fields – is John Moore’s number of 160 – that is to say, 160 people would be needed for humans to most likely survive. New Scientist calls this the ‘magic number’ for space pioneers, suggesting that for colonisation on Mars (or even further afield) one would need 160 people.

John Moore’s calculation is in the main correct, but New Scientist is but one of many who misuse or misunderstand the meaning of MVP. In the article, it is suggested that MVP could be ‘halved’ to 80 via social engineering (the idea is that later pregnancies will extend the lengths of generations), but this idea is flawed. Not because it wouldn’t work, but because MVP becomes an invalid source of measurement. Wikipedia states that ‘MVP does not take human intervention into account’, and this is a form of intervention – in this case, social scientists back on earth suggesting lengthening generations.

Now, why am I addressing MVP?

Minimum viable population is an attack used on creation by some evolutionists, so it’s important to know how to counter it. The argument is that Adam and Eve – two people – fall far below the MVP claimed by such surveys as Moore’s. There are a number of ways to refute the argument, which typically refers to the population bottlenecks of Adam and Eve as well as Noah and his relations (the latter less commonly than the former) as impossible.

Here are the rebuttals:


DNA Defects

Josephus states that, according to tradition, ‘The number of Adam’s children…was 33 sons and 23 daughters’. Whether or not this number is likely (and it seems to be when comparing the extended period in which Eve would have been giving birth to children). All of these children would almost certainly have had essentially perfect DNA – with no defects or mutations. And fertility is one of the scientifically observed facets of humanity which genetic mutations affect, making childbirth less common and more difficult.

Adam and Eve, being created perfect, would have an optimal set of circumstances, genetically speaking, to give birth to many children.


Evolution and MVP

There is evolutionary evidence – or at least, it’s interpreted as thus by many evolutionary scientists – that there was a population bottleneck eight to ten millennia ago (right before the most recent ice age), wherein human population dropped to about twelve. Yes, twelve.

Related image

Not only does this match the Flood timeframe reasonably well, it also provides the exact same problem for evolution. And all of these other solutions don’t work with it since they’re based on the ideas of a pure creation and divine intervention.


Extended Lifespan

To say ‘extended’ here is an understatement. Adam lived 930 years – not even 40 behind Methuselah, the oldest known person in history according to the Bible. (Don’t make the mistake of thinking Methuselah is definitely the oldest person in history. The Bible isn’t a categorical list of all people, and thus it’s possible – in fact, reasonably likely – that someone older than him is simply not listed in the genealogies.)

Scientifically speaking, since Adam lived about ten times as long as he would today (give or take a decade or two), Eve’s period of fertility would be extended tenfold – from 35 years to a staggering 350-year period. Since MVP is based on the prior length of time, it would probably decrease significantly in light of the new figure.


Divine Intervention

MVP is probabilistic. Even ignoring the other arguments, the elephant in the room is that God is, after all, a God of more than the improbable – He’s a God of the impossible. If Abraham can have a son at ninety-nine, if bread can fall from the sky in the Sinai desert, if David can defeat tens of thousands of Philistines single-handedly, then surely Adam and Eve can ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).



Minimum viable population is a scant argument at best. With a bit of thought, the problems with it are clear, but that’s the problem – most people don’t give it enough thought. The principle problem – not just with the refutation to the problem of MVP but with apologetics as a whole – is that people give in too easily. How many times have you heard someone say ‘The Bible is full of contradictions’ and seen others accept it without proof?

So MVP should be a sign of the average Christian’s difficulty dealing with tough questions like these. If that’s you, don’t let it be. Study the Bible. Learn apologetics. And most of all, use it.



New Scientist

Children of Adam and Eve

Genesis 1:28

Minimum Viable Population

Population Bottleneck Chart

Scientific Creation

Creation and Science

It is an all-too-common argument: why, if they comprise more than a third of humanity’s religious beliefs, do Creationists have such low numbers of scientists?

meta-chart (1).png

First, let us address the premises. Christians comprise roughly one-third of word religions, depending on whether you include Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Latter-Day Saints under their name. Most non-Christian assessments place this figure around 30% of Earth’s population – some 2.2 billion people.

The other premise is that evolutionary or atheistic scientists vastly outweigh Creationist ones – by anywhere from 70 to 98 percent. Is this true?

A 2009 survey by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that while 83% of the general public believe in God (or, as the survey put it, a ‘higher power’), only 33% of scientists do. A bit disparaging, one might think – but that wasn’t all.

The same poll (conducted on AAAS scientists on behalf of Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) found that a surprising thirty percent of scientists were either Protestant or Catholic.

What to make of this?

An important point to consider is that manipulation is worryingly common in surveys – the famous claim that 98% of scientists believe in global warming is actually swapping global warming for climate change: only 30% of scientists believe it’s our fault. Also, consider that we may have already turned this tide – in the 1970s, the popular chemical chlorofluorocarbons were banned under grounds that they were causing the ozone layer to begin to vanish…unsurprisingly, over Antarctica, where the sun’s rays would shine ever more harshly on icecaps. It takes about fifty years for such changes to work their way into the climate system and the ozone layer, so the effects of this change will probably soon start to be felt.

But returning to the point, there’s one more thing to ponder.

The AAAS scientists surveyed here – and the survey’s results – don’t exist in a vacuum. They affect what our children believe in ways we can’t begin to guess at. After all, aren’t children being taught this? Isn’t the persistent banning of religious acts in the education system what’s causing this disproportionate representation of atheists?

When thinking about this survey, it’s helpful to remember a quote from, of all people, Adolf Hitler – ‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’

So evolutionist scientists are more common than they logically ought to be. Does that make Creationists stupid?

If they keep saying it, it will.



Pew Research Poll

Worldwide Division of Religion

Hitler Quote