Season 5 Podcast 98, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Freewill A.” Episode

Season 5 Podcast 98, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Freewill A.” 

Because of the deterministic laws of nature, science has taken the stand that freewill does not exist. The fallacy in their argument is that laws have conditions and conditions allow freewill. It gives man the ability to organize laws to accomplish creative tasks such as producing electricity, placing man on the moon, etc. It is through law that God created earth and all that earth entails. All creations of God are based on obedience to law. It is God who gave us law, and it is God who reveals His laws to us, whether temporal or spiritual. Everything God does is for the purpose of increasing mankind’s intelligence, mankind’s agency, mankind’s joy, and mankind’s freewill.

The laws of nature are bound by cause and effect: for every effect, there is a cause; for every cause, there is an effect. It is called the principle of causality. The principle of causality establishes the boundaries of science, and from that was built the scientific method.

The laws of nature cannot be changed. Theoretical science would do well if philosophers stayed within the bounds of temporal law. Truth alone should be the agenda of science. Personal causes corrupt science. Facts are their only strength, and temporal law their only safeguard. Their success is based entirely on the accuracy of their temporal predictions. Without the ability to make accurate predictions, science would be meaningless.

The moment science becomes comfortable with coincidence, paradox, and improbability and adopts the theory of an accidental universe and accidental man, science loses its ability to be science. It is merely theoretical science and their guess, based on opinion, is no better than any other’s opinion, regardless of their occupation or their credentials. Science should never lose sight of the necessity of accurate prediction. Without prediction everything in science is mere theory, nothing more.

Such a dilemma is the theory of evolution. Scientists ignore the obvious that all opinions about evolution are not scientific fact. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact is an oxymoron. If we use Karl Popper’s method of evaluating scientific theory, we would be forced to dismiss the claim of evolutionists that evolution is a fact because it cannot be empirically falsified. Evolution is founded on the logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, after the fact, therefore because of the fact. Until it can predict ‘if this, therefore this’ it remains theory.

The science of evolution, like all other acts of nature, is governed by a complete set of laws. Laws establish boundaries. The purpose of science is to understand those boundaries. When they exceed those boundaries, then science ceases to be science. It becomes theory, speculation, conjecture, and guesswork. I repeat: In science that which cannot be accurately predicted is not science. It is one thing to say that man came from monkey. That is easy because it requires no proof. It cannot be falsified. However, it is quite another thing to predict what the next stage of evolution will bring, and evolutionists cannot do that. If they could, they could falsify the claim that man came from monkey.

Science, for example, cannot predict what evolution will do in the future; therefore, they cannot be secure in their opinions about what evolution did in the past. Only that which allows prediction is true science. Science, of course, may form a hypothesis; however, if they cannot prove the hypothesis through accurate prediction, they must not present the hypothesis as truth. Yet that is what has happened to the theory of evolution. Though ingenious in many ways, the theory of evolution cannot exceed the boundaries of the laws that govern it.