Randomness and Evolutionary cosmology - A Strong Delusion
Robert A. Herrmann Ph.D.
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion [error], that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned [condemned] who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thes. 2:11-12)
This article is addressed to the atheistic, the "probabilistic" or the "evolutionary" scientific communities where pre-suppositions tend to cloud comprehension. My major concern is with my articles , ,  and my recent book "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently Design" (Xulon Press) where these references and book discuss the notion of "randomness." My search for proper scientific definitions for this abused notion has forced me to alter definitions over the past few years. As should be well-known, in most cases, the term is used for psychological reasons. For example, many philosophers and especially those that one terms as "Humanists" use the notion of absolute or general randomness. I am at present preparing my final Web article on this subject. When complete, I will direct you to this URL.
In , it is shown that all natural-system behavior can be considered as a direct consequence of a non-trivial ultralogic, in general. This ultralogic is not dependent upon any specific theory that claims to describe the behavior of specific natural-systems (the internal theories) and, hence, is consistent with any such logically developed theory. It is self-evident that any internal scientific theory that does employ the concept of "randomness" does utilize scientific logic and, hence, at the least, a design that is depicted by a consequence operator. In , various perturbations from the ideal are included in the generation of a universe by means of ultralogics. This includes perturbations that are not associated with a theory and the "randomness" concept. This ultralogic generation of perturbed universes is again an external process that is not related to any internal theory as to how any internal natural-system is constrained to behave. [Note: there is a slight exception to this last statement. The intuitive notion that generated the idea of the subparticle does come from the behavior of electromagnetic energy. Of course, one can accept subparticles without such intuition.]
A careful reading of these articles and book will show that the material that establishes that (A) the major notion of randomness is theory depended, (B) such behavior has a non-trivial highly specific wondrous design, and (C) there is no such scientific concept as general randomness, where it is assumed that it is not dependent upon information theory whether it be Gitt information or any other type.
(1) If you use any language to construct a theory using scientific logic and the concept of randomness , as you presently understand this term, is a necessary feature within your theory,Many "evolutionary cosmologies" are theoretical investigations of cosmological models that are built from basic and assumed but not directly observable processes that are claimed to have produced our present universe over billions of years by means of inanimate evolution. Inanimate evolution is the concept that defined "fundamental" natural-systems "evolve" by means of natural processes into highly complex natural-systems. It is established by the same theoretical means \, as discussed in a small portion of the book, that individuals who accept the notion that randomness is not an intelligently designed notion and an evolutionary cosmology is the only viable process for the origin and development of our local environment are, from the theological viewpoint, being strongly deceived.
(2) if you are convinced that your theory is better than any other theory that does not include this concept, and
(3) convinced that your theory is, indeed, physical fact, and
(4) you believe that, under these circumstances, your theory does not indicate a non-trivial specific design that relates and controls the individual events or
(5) that your theory contradicts such Scriptures as Heb 1:3 which indicate that God always exercises complete control over the behavior of all natural-system entities within the universe that do not display those variations we describe as free-will, then,
(6) as established in , ,  and discussed in the above mentioned book, you have accepted a strong delusion.
A continual acceptance of either of these strong delusions [errors] may have significant personal "consequences."
References Herrmann, R. A. 1999. Information Theory, Consequence Operators, and the Origin of Life. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 36:125-234.
 Herrmann, R. A. 1998. The Wondrous Design and Non-random Character of Chance Events. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9903038
 Herrmann, R. A. 1985. Language and Science, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 22:128-137.
 Herrmann, R. A. 1994. Solutions to the General Grand Unification Problem etc. or http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9903110 and A U-cosmology
Revised 21 DEC 2002
Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.