If evolution is true, Humanity is
I can across an interesting headline in my newsreader the other day:
Here is their one sentence summary of what happened:
I remember a similar epic match up back in the day (twenty years ago to be precise) in Philadelphia between IBM's supercomputer "Deep Blue" and the then reigning world champion chess master Gary Kasparov (mentioned in the article above in passing). In the first match up, Deep Blue won only 1 of the 6 game series. Not satisfied, IBM wanted to win an entire match, so the engineers went off and made improvements for a rematch.
The rematch came the following year in New York City. As the above article notes, Deep Blue used a "brute force" approach to playing chess, evaluating the strength of various possible chess plays. Brute force is a bit of an under statement: "Deep Blue could calculate over 200 million chess positions per second" according to Smithsonian historian David Allison. Kasparov and Deep Blue split the first two games - winning one each, and tied the next three. Kasparov lost the final game to Deep Blue, giving Deep Blue the match. Kasparov, perhaps like many, couldn't believe he could lose to a machine and IBM's refusal to requests for computer logs and a rematch seemed to highlight previous charges he had made earlier in the match accusing the IBM team of cheating - having a human (grand master) help guide the machine.
The difference between Deep Blue's win and AlphaGo's win is that:
That is a game changer. As alluded to near the end of the article, one is reminded of the adaptability of the "The Terminator", and the dark future that scenario portends for humans.
Thus the first phrase of the title of the AlphaGo article, "The Beginning of the End" is really a softer way to put this stark truth: If evolution is true, humans are doomed. That is not a statement of hyperbole. If evolutionists believe that "evolution is a fact" - and they do - they must also believe that one of evolution's key tenets, "survival of the fittest" guarantees that some race - but not necessarily humans - will always rise to the top. Humans may have been the "fittest" to achieve species dominance for a short time (given an evolutionary time scale), but there are a number of scenarios bound to come where humans are not the fittest, and in fact are vastly inferior. Following are some scenarios where either plain evolution, or evolution coupled with human tinkering or Big Bang evolutionary theory spells certain doom for the human race.
Evolutionary Doomsday Scenarios
Scenario 1. AI Singularity
There you have it. The fear that haunts many a developer of AI - artificial intelligence. This fear has been around for years, but with the explosive growth and widespread adoption of computer and particularly robot and AI technology, the threat has moved from a distant possibility to a near term certainty. Developers of AI, like computer scientist Hugo De Garis see "...a future in which artificial intelligences are far more powerful than the entire human race combined." De Garis goes on to say:
The problem with the above scenario comes when your species is no longer the dominant species, and the dominant species determines you're a pest. De Garis gives the example of a mosquito. We humans regard mosquitoes as pests. If some (or all) of them are killed to keep the blood sucking, disease carrying parasites off us, most of us wouldn't care. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when the sophistication and intelligence of robots to humans approaches that of humans to mosquitoes? And the robots notice our oxygen breathing bodies and preference for warm temperatures corrodes and weakens their components too quickly and decide to decrease both the temperatures and the level of oxygen in all living spaces (which they would of course control by them) to a more robot friendly level. A level which happens to be below that which is required to sustain human life. In an evolutionary scenario, not only would we be powerless to stop it, we couldn't even say it's morally wrong, because as evolutionists constantly remind us, in an evolution derived universe, there are no morals, and the universe doesn't care what happens to humans. As evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins put it:
How long will it before before a super powerful machine like Agent Smith in The Matrix figures, as Smith did, that humans are a virus that need to be eradicated?
Scenario 2. Extra-Terrestrial Aggression/Expansion/Resource Acquisition
This is of course a perennial science fiction theme - the only variation being - what the Extra-terrestrials want to do with humans.
The common theme is of course to outright destroy man as in "Independence Day"(1996) and "The War of the Worlds" (2005, 1951). Other times the aliens merely want to rule the world as in the TV series "V" (2009). World domination is also the theme when various superior (and typically super powered) alien meglomanics want to rule over us, such as the alien Kryptonian General Zod in "Man of Steel" (2013) or Thor's brother Loki in The Avengers (2012) In the classic Twightlight Zone Episode "To Serve Man"(1962), the aliens want to eat us.
Since these are all science fiction
movies, one might tend to not take either them or the threat posed in
them - very seriously. But evolutionary scientists take them very seriously
- seeing them as a deadly serious threat.
B. Predatory (being at the top
of their food chain)
C. Possessing a war like culture (like ours) and looking for resources. As it turns out, this plotline from the many alien invasion movies is right on the mark:
Scientists believe that a global extinction event - like what they believe killed off the dinosaurs - will happen (again in their view) on earth. The only way for humans to survive such an event would be to spread our genes to other planets across the universe. As theoretical physicist Michio Kaku put it:
So who's to say that aliens haven't beaten us to the punch in spreading out across the universe?
Thus if evolution is true, it's not unreasonable to believe that an alien race might show up at the door step at planet earth with weapons as superior to ours as the nuclear bomb was to convention weapons at the close of World War II. If they decide to use such weapons to eradicate humans what could evolutionists say, besides, "Oh well, that's survival of the fittest. Clearly they are more fit." Evolutionists have no basis for any moral judgment on whether humans should be allowed to live. We're just another animal on the food chain in evolutionary scheme of things.
These last two items - AI Singularity and Extra-Terrestrial Aggression are side products of the Neo-evolution theory that began with Darwin's On The Origin of Species. Big Bang evolution has a different, but even more certain doom for not just humans, but all life.
Scenario 3. Big Bang Doomsday
Scenario: The End of All Life
A. The Big Crunch
These are the three possible outcomes based on
what happens as a result of the interplay between the contractive force
of gravity and the mysterious expansive force scientists call dark
energy. A force they say is causing the universe to expand.
Dark energy is unique in that it is, say the scientists, a property of empty space. And the more you expand space, the more dark energy you get. Thus if dark energy expands at a steady 1:1 rate with the expansion of space, you wind up with the Big Chill - everything slowly drifting apart and dissolving away. Even stars and black holes dissolve away over trillions of years. But if dark energy increases more quickly - at an exponential rate, you get the big rip - which happens much more quickly. In that scenario:
For what it's worth scientists believe the evidence points toward the scenario of the Big Chill:
In that scenario, the universe dies a long slow, cold death, and with it, all life within it.
So there you have three scenarios where the secular philosophies of evolution and the Big Bang predict certain disaster for the human race. And I haven't even touched on human caused or assisted catastrophes such as the genetically engineered apes that become the dominant species in the reboot of "Planet of the Apes" or the lethal genetically engineered virus that wipes out most of mankind in "I am Legend. Such doomsday scenarios is all the hope that secular science has to offer for the future of humankind.
God has planned a Glorious Future
Thankfully, Biblical creationists do not share the doom and gloom view of secular scientist - that there will be an eventual destruction of the universe and thus the extinguishment of all life for all time. Just as Genesis tells us how God started the world and all life, Revelation tells us how God will move them to an eternal state. And in between we have the doctrine of the majesty of man. We need not worry about superior aliens taking over first because neo-Darwinian evolution is impossible, so life could not have evolved elsewhere. Second, there's no indication in scripture that God placed life on other planets. God make the earth to be inhabited (Is 45.18), there's no reason to believe he did likewise with another planet. Finally because scripture tells us that man is at the pinnacle of God's creation - there are no higher created things - not even angels. Psalm 8 proclaims the majesty of man and his position in the creation:
As for the future of man kind, that is also revealed in Revelation:
If evolution were true, humanity would most certainly be doomed. Thankfully all the evidence points to a simple but profound fact: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Evolution is most certainly false. And a look around at the wonder of God's creation gives us reason to say with the psalmist:
Duane Caldwell | 4/7/2016Follow @duanecaldwell
2. David Allison, Curatorial
Affairs, Smithsonian National Museum of American History, ref from TV
Series: Mysteries at the Museum episode "Lost Colony of Roanoke,
Linda Hazzard, Deep Blue" original air date: 5/22/2012
7. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A
Darwinian View of Life; 1995 ref from
16. Many modern translation substitute
"angels" for God, but the word in the original Hebrew is
- the word for God. Commentators speculate the word was traditionally
translated as "angels" to avoid theological problems in both Hebrew and