Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The George Shollenberger Report to ‘The People’ of the USA on the Debates Between the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution

The debates on the theory of creation and the theory of evolution are spread throughout the States of the USA and among governors, legislators, educators, and parents. In Washington, three groups of leaders discuss these theories. One group consists of believers in creation. They reject evolution. The second group consists of atheists who accept evolution. The third group consists of believers in creation who also accept evolution. The third group seems to be guided by the Catholic Church. Shollenberger argues for creation and says that creation cannot coexist with evolution scientifically.

In the late 1990s, a debate on these two theories was conducted by the National Academy of Science. A report was issued in 1999. I conclude that this report was biased because the report has twenty-nine pages on evolutionary theory but only one page on creation theory. Apparently, this 15-member debating group had only one defender of creation. The report of the Academy supports the teaching of evolution in public high schools.

Unfortunately, the defender of creation was defending only one specific interpretation of the Genesis in the Bible. This interpretation says that the creation began about 4000 years ago. Shollenberger rejects this interpretation saying that the creation of generations of heavens and earths must have taken billions of years before the first rain came. ( See Gen. 2:4-5). So, at least two biblical interpretations of Moses’ creation theory exist. But, other creation theories exist. Plato proposed a third creation theory. (Timaeus) And, Nicholas of Cusa proposed a fourth creation theory in the 15th century (On Learned Ignorance). Today, scientific proofs of God also exist. A scientific proof of God says that a creation theory exists. One of these proofs of God is found in my book, The First Scientific Proof of God. This scientific proof is a general proof of God and applies all created things. Other scientific proofs use particular created things such as the brain or photon. (Use Google or Yahoo and search on ‘scientific proof of God.’)

Now, I show why the theory of evolution is not a science. I use the work of Charles Darwin as reported in ‘The Origin of the Species’ (1859) and ‘The Descent of Man’ (1874). Darwin says that the origin of all species is found in ancestors. Thus, he says that humans and apes have the same ancestor. Today, evolutionists say that these ancestors come from nonliving things. Then, physicists say that all nonliving things come from a single thing, which is a physical particle in the Big Bang theory. However, the ancestors of the species have never been found. Nor has any scientist shown that nonliving things can create living ancestors and species. Further, the Big Bang theory is not proven and also has a contradiction, as I point out in my book. Should the theory of evolution be taught? Shollenberger says no, even if the creation theories and scientific proofs of God are taught.

A review of Darwin’s work on the descent of man raises a major scientific problem because Darwin’s science classifies all species. When he classifies them, he classifies humans as an animal. This classification scheme allows Darwin to connect man and apes rationally so they have the same ancestor. With Darwin, the difference between an ape and man is simply a gradual change from ape to man. In Book III of his book On Learned Ignorance, Cusa shows that all species can be distinguished perfectly and infinitely on a single continuum. Only the Intelligent Design of a perfect God can construct such a continuum.

However, why did he classify species? History answers this question. History tells us that categorical reasoning came from Aristotle and his logically created meanings. This is the way Aristotle could understand the world. Clearly, Darwin’s evolutionary science was derived from Aristotle’s categorical reasoning and his logical reasoning to define concepts. One can quickly conclude that Darwin aligned his thoughts to Aristotle. We can see this alignment when Darwin uses Aristotle’s saying ‘that man is a social animal.’ Darwin’s alignment to Aristotle is expected because Aristotelean scientists and empiricists were controlling the English language and the English mind during his time. Darwin and Karl Marx aligned their thoughts when both say that socialism is the highest development of man.

Aristotle’s categorical reasoning and logic were rejected by scientists in Paris before the Renaissance. They were replaced with the idea of continuity. Continuity led to Descartes’ analytical geometry in France and to Leibniz’s infinitesimal calculus in Germany. Continuity also led to functional relations in mathematics. At Darwin’s time, Aristotle was still an idol in England and the English language and the English mind began to degenerate because facts, facts, facts, ... will destroy any culture. To develop a true science continua must be used. For instance, temperature became a true science when temperature’s logically created categories such as hot, warm, cold, cool, and tepid were dropped and a numbered continuum of temperature was developed and led to the thermometer.

Darwin also says that knowledge can also be categorized. He thus says that the interval between man and apes is filled with numberless gradations of knowledge. So, Darwin’s science would say that we can identify all human knowledge, all ape knowledge, all beaver knowledge, all flee knowledge, etc., all human instincts, all ape instincts ..., all human memories, all ape memories, ... etc. This implies that knowledge has an end. I see no end to anything in the universe. To logically categorize nature is not science and should not be taught in any school.

By the early 1700s, the debates between the empiricists and rationalists began. By 1776 many European people had left their lands to build a free nation under God in America. In America, these people already knew that it is through moral laws that man frees himself. They placed moral laws in the Declaration of Independence along with the ‘laws of nature.’ They called these moral laws the ‘law of nature’s God.’ Did the early colonists from England know what was coming in England with the philosophy and logic of Aristotle and the ungodly social categories that England would develop?

Darwin says that moral senses differ between man and the lower animals. In Ch. 4 of Descent of Man, Darwin says that a huge difference exists between man and the lower animals on the general category of ‘moral sense.’ I say that this difference cannot be measured. My research says that a creator God must appears in the universe. This necessary appearance will not cause the knowledge of apes, beavers, bacteria, etc. to increase. Only man’s knowledge will grow because only man can communicate linguistically with the appearing God.


  • At 12:53 AM, Anonymous Kirk Jones, Seattle said…

    What do you mean by "symbolic languages"?

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    kirk jones,seattle,

    Well, you are the first person who asked this question. Apparently, you are the first to recognize that I am saying that there is something wrong with our languages. And, if something is wrong with our language, there is also somthing wrong with our minds. Try to think without using words and you will see wht I am saying.

    And, if you were following the discussion of the words competence and incompetence on this web recently, you will recognize that something is also wrong with the Englaish language.

    One US problem today is that most Americans are unaware of the meaning of 'language problem.'

    The language problem was found in the 1920s after the empiricists and rationalists fought for methodological supremacy in science foe centuries and Kant failed to unify them. The reason empiricism or rationalism did not win is because in the 1920, independent linguists discovered that sense-data are primarily symbolic.

    Because of this discovery, a scientist must give the meaning to the sense-data found in the univrse. The bottom line is that symbols define each other. In physics, the laws of physics are true because the symbols used in the laws of physics define each other. So, the school of physics did the right thing by developing laws of physics out of six primary symbols and other secondary symbols. The physicists developed a symbolic language but still do not know that they created a 'symbolic language.'

    Sounds simple? No, because symbols are not sought in any other fields of thought. Instead of developing symbolic languages they make 'concepts' define is with Aristotle's method of definition and try to build truths. This method of definition cannot develop truths. This is why the US economy is lost in wonderland and why the school of medicine cannot find the cause of cancer. I say that they are not finding the cause of cancer because they are not developing a symbolic language.

    I developed a symbolic language in the field of theology and proved God with it. Then, I connected God to the universe with symbols. These symbols unifies theology and science. This means that theology and science are using the a common symbol language. It was thus simple for me to say that that a scientific proof of God exists. I could have also said that a theological proof of God exists.

    Now, incompetent or lazy Americans, especially the atheists and evolutionist who do not know anything about symbolic languages, say that they do not believe my proofs. Nor do they believe that a scientific proof of God exists. They must get their heads out of the snd.

    What is happening to America? They are studying the wromg books.

  • At 8:36 AM, Anonymous Jonathan Walters said…

    George -

    I have purchased your book and look forward to discussing with you on the blog.

    All the best

    Chicago, IL

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    jonathan walters,

    You made a great decision. Since the book will be tough for most people, I am here to answer any questions you might have.


  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    kirk jones, seattle,

    To help you understand the nature of symbolic languages, you might read the blogs beginning on Feb. 23, 2007. You will find eleven blogs on symbolic language. The final blog is on Mar. 14, 2007.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home