The thing I love about atheists is that they love jargon. Scientific jargon. Especially when they want to refute creationism or religion. Example:
“The statement that “the Theory of Evolution has never been proven…” makes me suspicious that you do not understand what a ‘theory’ is in the scientific sense. It does not mean “guess”, nor is it even a mere “hypothesis”. It is a word with a very specific meaning for an explanation which a) explains the relevant data, b) explains new data as it is gathered, c) is falsifiable (that is, it can be demonstrated to be false) and d) makes testable predictions and through verification of these testable predictions our confidence in the validity of the hypothesis is increased. Natural selection has all of these attributes in spades. At some point, the hypothesis is so well supported by evidence and has passed many tests that it is no longer just a hypothesis, but becomes a theory. Natural selection is so well supported that it is considered a factual theory. That is, natural selection is indeed the mechanism by which speciation occurs. At this point, I cannot even imagine what possible evidence against natural selection could be uncovered. It is just that well supported by evidence and successful hypothesis testing….”
Blah, blah, blah. The word ‘ignorance’, ‘uneducated’, ‘un-informed’ are often used as well.
Look, I have no plan whatsoever to meet atheists on their playing field. I plan to come about this argument on my own terms and on my own observations and on my own logic. Why do THEY get to define what the terms are? Why must we let them define the argument? Who gave them that mantel? Atheist scientists love to drag non-scientists into terminology wars, hoping to browbeat them into submission. Sorry, I have NO special regard or respect for people who label themselves as ‘scientists’. Nor do I have any special regard for the methodology they use to ‘prove’ things. That is their choice. I choose to approach it differently- and just as validly as they do. We are all living scientists. We look at the world around us and make logical connections. Under what law should I be forced to discuss creation, or evolution, or any fact finding mission in their terms? Let them answer my questions, I say! I will be presenting this argument in a way that makes sense to me. Atheist scientists, you must meet me on MY ground. Answer MY questions. Pull apart my argument. Show where I am illogical. And then we can have a discussion. I would LOVE to hear your responses.
Now, the title of this article is ‘Why Evolution Makes No Sense Today’. Not, ” I will prove the existence of God”. As a true scientist, I love facts. More than anything. I have no interest in attempting to skew so-called ‘evidence’ into my own belief system. See, I had you there, didn’t I? You thought I would have a real problem if the Theory of Evolution, Speciation or whatever turns out to be true. But I do not have any problem with that at all! To me, God is the ultimate scientist. If God is God, then He made everything. If He made everything, then He must be pretty smart and talented. He must be the ultimate micro-biologist, the ultimate mathematician, the ultimate poet, the ultimate joker, the ultimate lover, the ultimate artist, Right? IF, God is God. And as I know He is God, then of course, everything around me was made by Him. Why should I fear any discovery of how He made it?
So, why this article? Because the Theory of Evolution, specifically Speciation, simply hasn’t been proven to my, or anyone’s satisfaction (except, of course atheists who believe it will disprove God’s existence, which it doesn’t) and yet, it is presented, as FACT time and again. And because God and ‘science’ are so often linked, not only in the minds of religious people, but in the minds of atheists. But the atheists are the worst about it. When religious people refute ‘scientific’ evidence, they hurt no one. But when atheist scientists refute true scientific facts, they hurt kids. Especially kids in school. There is an agenda behind their use of the theory of evolution. They simply jump the scientific gun on Evolution and state, as FACT, a mere theory- highly unproven by any hard evidence- and NO FOSSIL evidence at all. All my kids’ books say things like, “The dolphin once lived on land until evolution resulted in the slow atrophy of its hind legs…” That really bugs me out. It would bug me just as much if their books said, “The pyramids came into being after aliens from another planet gave special tools and equipment to the ancient Egyptians- after which they erased the population’s memories and mysteriously disappeared.” I only want the FACTS to be taught properly. And atheist scientists, here is a fact you should know quite well by now, given your thousands of years of failure to ‘see’ the obvious: just because YOU cannot see something with your little, human eyes and can’t feel it with your little human fingers and cannot phantom it with your human little mind, DOESN’T mean it can’t exist. So this statement:
“Since no matter how unlikely any naturalistic explanation, it will always be infinitely more likely than a supernatural one.”
is patently UNSCIENTIFIC. REALLY? Did you REALLY say that? Were air molecules also ‘supernatural’? They used to say that women herbalists and doctors were ‘witches’ using ‘supernatural’, ‘satanic’ forces to heal people. And not just the priests, either; the men ‘scientists’ said so too! Ummm fellas, hello! they used the medicinal properties of the plants- just as we do today! Why do you assume that because you can’t see God, that He is ‘supernatural’? Are you superstitious? This, my friends, is the basic flaw of modern, so-called atheistic ‘science’ today. It actually WISHES that some things CANNOT be. Is this the goal of ‘science’? To say something CANNOT be? My perception of true science is to pursue WHAT IS, regardless of whether or not I ‘like’ the results or inevitable conclusions that my discoveries lead me to. Why should anyone assume that there is no intelligent life form that is way smarter than humans, with much higher technology than humans have and that visits, unseen, our planet from time to time?
OOOh, sorry, I forgot! They DO believe in super intelligent, non-Earth, unseen, higher technological beings that visit our earth from time to time- aliens! But our human scientists assume that these life forms are only SO intelligent. Only as intelligent and highly technical as their human little minds can fathom and understand. Our human scientists believe, wholeheartedly, that there is life out there- they search the heavens with multimillion dollar giant dishes for them. But the hubris of man prevents these sadly limited ‘scientists’ from just accepting what might be- that there could be life forms so far advanced from humans that they are actually our creators. Is that science? To put an artificial limit on the result of your hypothesis before you have even found any results? And oh, let’s not forget, they already have some idea of what they will look like, based on what they already KNOW what they will NOT look like. For example: they won’t have wings and they won’t shine with a bright light. They know that. Umm hummm. interesting science.
It is just as valid a hypothesis to start with the existence of God as with the idea that all creation happened on its own. Didn’t a scientist once dare to say that, although ‘everyone’ said the sun revolved around the world, he BELIEVED it might be the other way around, based on his own initial perceptions? Did the ‘scientists’ of his day accept that? No, or it would have already been ‘discovered’ by then! He was the first to observe it. The first to test it, the first to present it. Didn’t he begin with an unproven idea and then pursue the facts? In fact, is that not how ALL science is done? With an unproven idea? So, why then does modern science WISH to not make this initial assumption of God and test it? All science, ALL OF IT, began as something unproven. That, my friends, is one basic fact. So, it is completely, scientifically invalid to say that simply because something is currently unproven that it does not exist. Or that it is ‘supernatural’. Or that it is a myth. Or a fairy tale. Further, it is scientifically invalid to say that, because NO ONE has chosen to embark on a certain hypothesis, (theory or whatever they wish to call it), it is not a valid pursuit of ‘science’. Says, who, exactly?
There are many facts that science has yet to ‘prove’ in a way they like to define as ‘proof’. And what is ‘proven’ or ‘unproven’ over time has changed. Before the invention of the microscope, there was no ‘proof’ (as terminology loving scientists define it) that air molecules existed. And yet they did. There was no ‘proof’ that gravity, light particles, or even germs existed. And yet they did. Did that change the fact that these things DID exist? Of course not. Scientists in the olden days thought putting leaches on a sick person would drain the ‘bad blood’ from people. This resulted in many deaths. This practice is laughable today. And yet, those ‘scientists’ insisted that it was the correct solution. Another indisputable fact: apparently, things do not ‘exist’ until white, Western scientists say they do. Example: giant squids. Remember those old sailor tales that spoke of giant octopi working together to attack ships? Did the European scientists believe them? No, they were dismissed as ‘uneducated’ ramblings of drunken sailors until they showed up, attacking boats off Japanese and then, California’s coast. Another example: ‘monsters’ that ate people discovered by native peoples in their rivers & lakes. These have all been arrogantly dismissed as fairy tales by European & American scientists- until THEY finally see it with their own eyes. It doesn’t matter that these little, brown people have seen it or known about it for a hundred years. It only is valid the day a white, Western scientist sees it, gives it a fancy name and puts it in their ‘official’ books of existence. Isn’t that funny? Don’t ‘wrong’ scientists of yesterday look so very foolish today? Therefore, define ‘proof’, ‘theory’, ‘evidence’, or ‘hypothesis testing’ all you want. The fact is, ‘science’, as so many atheist scientists like to define, is nothing but the arrogant presumption that something only exists the moment a white, western ‘scientist’ sees it with their own eyes. A Giant, Invisible Elephant could be standing right next to a ‘scientist’, which all of US can see, but since THEY can’t see it, why, it just doesn’t EXIST! Why should we, today, seeing the laughable ‘science’ of the past, believe that scientists have better equipment to see ‘facts’ than the equipment we were born with- instinct & common logic being some of them? Why should we assume that something DOESN’T exist because these people have not ‘proven’ it to themselves?
I see the pursuit of science the way Einstein, himself, did. He said, concerning science & God, “My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly”. And I also accept that what is, is. No fact alarms me. No future fact alarms me. Can atheists claim that if the existance of God were proven in the future? would it bother them? would they, then, bow down the knee and worship happily?
What I am getting at here is that atheist scientists cheat at their own game. Not only that, but it is they, more than the religious community, that are blinded by their own personal motivations to skew true science & fact in favor of their desired outcomes. And worse, they attempt to shove their bad science off on little kids in school.
Why is it, that only with the existence of a GOD, is the scientific community so….. unscientific? Every other thesis a doctorate student proposes must be scrutinized by a million scientific panels before the thing is even published, let alone called a theory or a fact? Why is it that Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ is always referred to as the ‘Theory of relativity’ in class, but evolution and speciation are taught as a FACT? Why is the word ‘theory’ never used in conjunction with the word, ‘evolution’? In every physics class I ever took, the teacher took pains to tell us that Einstein had only published a theory, unproven yet. And we can see evidence of his theory all throughout the universe- not just on earth as the theory of evolution is so limited to. So why does the theory of evolution get higher billing than the theory of relativity?
I smell the arrogance of man here. And, to be fair, woman. Oh, these so-called ‘smart’ people have such a chip on their shoulders when it comes to God. The very thought that they, with their doctorate degrees they sweated their asses off to get, should actually kneel down, put their hands together in supplication to ask MERCY and forgiveness and help is just TOO unbearable. That is what I see. Otherwise, they would be fine just presenting the Theory of Evolution properly. Also the theory of Creationism. Or a combination thereof (which is what I believe). It is not I, nor most Christians, that fear Facts and Science- it is the Scientists themselves- because they are arrogant in their measly knowledge (hell, they still can’t cure a cold- betcha God could) and it is actually they who could not handle the FACTS should they be known to them.