I believe in an intelligent creator of the universe. Do you? Without bogging you down with trivia, many scientists believe in a creator. In-fact, 40% of scientists believe in an intelligent creator; Francis Collins, the source of the mentioned statistic, is a scientist (Human Genome Project director) and also a believer. My point is that not all scientists are atheists.
The Universe is much more complex than anything humans have created; in fact, it's even more complex than we can comprehend. Shouldn't that give us pause? To think such a thing could "just happen" seems ridiculous. The reason many are atheists today is because of two things:
1) Many famous atheists have presented articulate arguments against intelligent creation by attacking old religious scripture.
2) There is a major disconnect between contemporary moral values and traditional ones; this creates the need for people to escape Christian values by formulating arguments against them.
In this blog post, I'm going to address the first reason people become atheists. Sure, religious text (referring to Old/New Testament) can be argued against; especially if they are looked at with a narrow lens (literally and/or taking the text out of context). Let's say a portion of the Bible is capable of being argued against, does this disprove God (intelligent force[s])? No. It's like claiming that just because leprechauns aren't real, this disproves rainbows. More importantly, atheists miss the point of the Bible: the moral and spiritual lessons that are contained within. The bible is not intended to be a scientific book because it was created with a different methodology.
Evolution debunked as real science.
Evolution is pseudo-science that has caused people to miss the forest full of trees—an intelligent force underlying the creation of the universe. As you read the following, keep an open mind; don't just view it with a hateful, biased attitude.
Atheists claim evolution disproves scripture (specifically Genesis; spontaneous biological creation via an intelligent force). Has macro-evolution even been shown to have occurred? No. The best they can show is micro-evolution; but micro-evolution has not been shown to be able to accommodate for all the structural complexity and speciation. Even those that use "micro-evolution" to breed different varieties of foods and animals know that there are limits to their meddling. At best, all micro-evolution has been shown to do is alter the representation of existing features (within a population), not create new ones. Micro-evolution's reach includes things like bone length, width, and density; hair color and texture; internal organ size and strength, etc.; skin color, texture, and thickness. There is a lot of room for variation among existing structures, but this capacity was known about way before Darwin. Darwin went wrong when he claimed that variation within a species was capable of creating entirely new species and internal structures. He claimed (with zero evidence) that with enough time, the most simplest form of life (known to us as 'bacteria') could transform into a multi-celled organisms as complex as human beings. There is simply no solid evidence that such an event occurred (bacteria > all modern life). It is all hopeful speculation on the part of scientists, but certainly outside of the scientific method; yet it's being taught as science. When scientists leave the realm of science and get into speculation, they are really outside of their domain (which limits them by the scientific method). Scientists simply have no evidence (only speculation) evolution is responsible for the complexity of life on earth, and let's not even get started about how life even got here to begin with (their speculation is even more scattered).
Sure, variation exists among populations, but when someone breeds a dog to have slightly longer fur, is any new complexity added? I'm talking about real complexity: some new evolutionary change that makes the animal's internal structure(s) more complex than its peers' (otherwise the species' population would always remain unchanging). Most biologists claim that "evolution took a long time", but what does more time get us? If it can't be shown to occur (increasing complexity) in the short term (even within a 1,000+ years) in even a minute amount, what is more time going to give us? I'm not talking about anything unreasonable; just the slightest little change that creates new, viable internal structures within existing species. Let me repeat, complexity has never been observed to increase, only speculated to increase. Yet with zero evidence (only speculation), we are suppose to believe that our earliest ancestors were bacteria—it just took "a long time". I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have faith in scientists' speculation of what happened; they are bound by the scientific method and anything that goes beyond that transforms them into laypersons. They have faith in an unproven concept (macro-evolution) because it seems more "scientific" than the religious explanation; they would rather go with that speculation than with one which seems even more unreachable—God.
A scenario to put scientific speculation into context
In an experiment, amino-acids (important building block of life) were created in a lab using basic materials speculated to exist on primitive Earth. Here's an example of what that would be like: Humans die off and all traces of our existence disappear. Aliens descend on this plant to study its life. They managed to discover this strange contraption, perfectly preserved in ice, with wheels and an apparent design....
The Universe is much more complex than anything humans have created; in fact, it's even more complex than we can comprehend. Shouldn't that give us pause? To think such a thing could "just happen" seems ridiculous. The reason many are atheists today is because of two things:
1) Many famous atheists have presented articulate arguments against intelligent creation by attacking old religious scripture.
2) There is a major disconnect between contemporary moral values and traditional ones; this creates the need for people to escape Christian values by formulating arguments against them.
In this blog post, I'm going to address the first reason people become atheists. Sure, religious text (referring to Old/New Testament) can be argued against; especially if they are looked at with a narrow lens (literally and/or taking the text out of context). Let's say a portion of the Bible is capable of being argued against, does this disprove God (intelligent force[s])? No. It's like claiming that just because leprechauns aren't real, this disproves rainbows. More importantly, atheists miss the point of the Bible: the moral and spiritual lessons that are contained within. The bible is not intended to be a scientific book because it was created with a different methodology.
Evolution debunked as real science.
Evolution is pseudo-science that has caused people to miss the forest full of trees—an intelligent force underlying the creation of the universe. As you read the following, keep an open mind; don't just view it with a hateful, biased attitude.
Atheists claim evolution disproves scripture (specifically Genesis; spontaneous biological creation via an intelligent force). Has macro-evolution even been shown to have occurred? No. The best they can show is micro-evolution; but micro-evolution has not been shown to be able to accommodate for all the structural complexity and speciation. Even those that use "micro-evolution" to breed different varieties of foods and animals know that there are limits to their meddling. At best, all micro-evolution has been shown to do is alter the representation of existing features (within a population), not create new ones. Micro-evolution's reach includes things like bone length, width, and density; hair color and texture; internal organ size and strength, etc.; skin color, texture, and thickness. There is a lot of room for variation among existing structures, but this capacity was known about way before Darwin. Darwin went wrong when he claimed that variation within a species was capable of creating entirely new species and internal structures. He claimed (with zero evidence) that with enough time, the most simplest form of life (known to us as 'bacteria') could transform into a multi-celled organisms as complex as human beings. There is simply no solid evidence that such an event occurred (bacteria > all modern life). It is all hopeful speculation on the part of scientists, but certainly outside of the scientific method; yet it's being taught as science. When scientists leave the realm of science and get into speculation, they are really outside of their domain (which limits them by the scientific method). Scientists simply have no evidence (only speculation) evolution is responsible for the complexity of life on earth, and let's not even get started about how life even got here to begin with (their speculation is even more scattered).
Sure, variation exists among populations, but when someone breeds a dog to have slightly longer fur, is any new complexity added? I'm talking about real complexity: some new evolutionary change that makes the animal's internal structure(s) more complex than its peers' (otherwise the species' population would always remain unchanging). Most biologists claim that "evolution took a long time", but what does more time get us? If it can't be shown to occur (increasing complexity) in the short term (even within a 1,000+ years) in even a minute amount, what is more time going to give us? I'm not talking about anything unreasonable; just the slightest little change that creates new, viable internal structures within existing species. Let me repeat, complexity has never been observed to increase, only speculated to increase. Yet with zero evidence (only speculation), we are suppose to believe that our earliest ancestors were bacteria—it just took "a long time". I'm sorry, but I'm not going to have faith in scientists' speculation of what happened; they are bound by the scientific method and anything that goes beyond that transforms them into laypersons. They have faith in an unproven concept (macro-evolution) because it seems more "scientific" than the religious explanation; they would rather go with that speculation than with one which seems even more unreachable—God.
A scenario to put scientific speculation into context
In an experiment, amino-acids (important building block of life) were created in a lab using basic materials speculated to exist on primitive Earth. Here's an example of what that would be like: Humans die off and all traces of our existence disappear. Aliens descend on this plant to study its life. They managed to discover this strange contraption, perfectly preserved in ice, with wheels and an apparent design....
Image by StaraBlazkova (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons
It seems that there must have been a designer...but wait! Oil was discovered in it! Alien science has proven that oil originated by ancient plant life. Hmm, that must mean that with the natural production of oil, over a long period of time, machinery must have evolved around its use. I mean, the oil must have came first; without oil, the machine could never have functioned. Mystery solved, evolution is true! And complexity "just happened" *poof*.
An intelligent creator is too hard to prove, probably impossible. Scientists don't like that. They prefer ends that they believe could be proven to occur (which is fair enough, speculation is an important part of the method, but requires evidence to support it before it can be considered true scientific knowledge). That said, I hope our search for the truth doesn't cause us to miss the forest full of trees like it did for the aliens.
The reality is that increasing complexity has never been shown to occur without the interference of intelligence, guiding the process. Scientists need to humble themselves with an awareness of their ignorance. They have blurred the lines between speculation and scientific knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment