Sunday, August 16, 2009

Science and Evolutionism - Atheist Blockers

Atheism demands perfect evidence, supposedly, when it comes to the existence of God, yet will settle for a scientific theory that requires unlimited man-hours, new best-sellers, websites and an army of atheists to defend strenuously even today, 150 years later, when it should all be done and dusted.

Scientists as a whole can generally be trusted to keep an open mind, but unfortunately it is the dishonest atheist, hiding behind science's lack of complete information, that gives scientists and everyone else a bad name. Science, in general, does not conflict with religion and will never do so unless and until science can categorically prove that there never was a first cause who is God. That is unlikely to ever happen, particularly as evidence for the supernatural refuses to go away, while science struggles to develop the tools to properly study supernatural phenomena.

Religion sees science as a tool that reveals as much of God's glory as God wishes to provide. So far, believers are enjoying the ride and what a great ride it is! Hubble..Wow! And so far, we have no conflict. Atheism is, as it has always been, the chaotic force that wishes science to remain distanced and non-committal in supernatural things and at the same time, for religion to disappear without a trace. And all for freedom to descend into nihilism, for freedom to do whatever they want, and most importantly, let's face it....hatred of God.

I wonder how scientists feel about being a shelter for atheism. It must embarrass science to know that atheism only exists because of science's inability to, among other things:

  1. Find enough fossil evidence to support evolution.

  2. Get the tools (and willpower) to properly study supernatural phenomena

Regarding the human eye:
Darwin himself realised the great stretch required to believe that such a complex structure could "evolve". So firstly, please forgive theists "arguments from incredulity" on the topic of evolution, when the very person responsible for this theory showed the most incredulity of all, although in his case we can more safely call it educated opinion, unless atheists would suddenly like to cast doubt on Darwin's qualifications, in which case we'd also be satisfied. So, ironically, that automatically makes the theist argument for incredulity scientific educated opinion at least.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)".

Atheist evolutionists rush to the defence of atheism (not to the defence of Darwin or Science) with a contrived explanation that this expression of doubt is merely rhetorical and that solutions are subsequently provided in later paragraphs. It surprises no-one that atheists cannot bring themselves to concede, as the text clearly suggests, that Darwin had serious reservations about the theory of evolution and was forced to come up with a series of "plausible" explanations that "might" account for such things as the complexity of the eye.

Any perfect evidence so far? Nope, we have a shortlist of possiblities that Darwin came up with in the huge unmistakable absence of anything resembling fact and truth. So, any scientific basis for evolution so far? Nope...the theory should still be well and truly in the theory basket under lock and key, certainly not released as part of school curriculum.

The disturbing issues here, which atheists take full advantage of, is that Science constantly gets by on plausibility until someone comes up with a better answer. How many times has science come up with better answers to succeed what scientists previously thought? We could not keep count. Science, pardon the irony, is not an exact science.

Darwin, in no way, committed himself to his theories of macro-evolution. The eye and non-existent fossil record are but two of his major self-admitted concerns. So, how has it been possible, even though these same questions have not yet been fully answered with irrefutable evidence (remember, atheists demand perfect evidence for God, but conveniently overlook it as it suits them), for atheists to have managed to get so much mileage out of evolution, when serious doubt exists absolutely everywhere in science, not only in evolution. These are a couple of reasons:

  1. People don't differentiate between micro-evolution (natural selection) and macro-evolution. Darwin is more famous for his theory of natural selection, pointing out his own serious reservations about the theory of evolution. But atheists have managed to sneak the theory of evolution into the same acceptance basket by bringing up even more theory, such as.... well...that evolution is just natural selection on a larger scale.
  2. Science cannot substantiate, in a satisfactory peer-reviewed way, the evidence and claims for the supernatural. This allows atheists to dishonestly use the catchcry that there is "no evidence" for God and continue on their merry way. It's a toll they don't have to pay. The toll gates are wide open. And they dishonestly skip through with sneers on their faces.

Another favourite atheist saying is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, evolution is an extraordinary claim ("we came from primordial ooze") and there is even less evidence than, say, the supernatural occurrences at Medjugorje, which science has studied on at least 3 separate occasions. Science only gets so far but stops short of proof, not having the tools to advance further. THAT is the imperfect evidence Dawkins et al rely upon.

Who wins? Science? Nope. Religion? Nope. Atheism? Indeed! Atheism is a cowardly practice that relies on absence of information, chaos. Yes, it all sounds like a Maxwell Smart episode doesn't it. Atheism is that dark, dishonest shadow that hangs around, never quite gets to do anything, but cleverly learns to love and profit from the chaos and misinformation it creates. Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens are laughing their way to the bank.


  1. Some comments:

    "Science struggles to properly develop the tools to stufy the supernatural"

    This implies that scientists are actually making an effort - this is completely incorrect except in the case of psuedoscience and religious apologists. Scientists study the NATURAL world.

    "Find enough fossil evidence to support evolution"

    I'm afraid you are either quite ignorant of the trremendous amount of evidence that has been found in transitional fossils, or choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn't support your beliefs. If you have an open mind, read Donald Prothero's "What the Fossils say and why it matters" otherwise stop commenting on things you choose to be ignorant of.

    As for the human eye, there are species extant TODAY who have transitional eye structures, from light sensitive patches of skin to fully functional eyeballs. We don't even need to refer to the fossil record for this!

    Why are you using 150 year old comments from someone who originated a seminal idea instead of modern evolutionary biologists? Answer: because 150 year old data is the only thing that supports your position. This is disingenuous at best, deceipt at worst.

    Frankly, it's amusing you choose to say atheists rely on absence of information and chaos when you argue your points from absence of information!!

  2. You follow the typical creationist practice of misquoting Darwin - he tends to set up his comments with rhetorical prefaces such as "You wouldn't think this BUT..." If you drop the BUT part you lose the entire thread, which obviously serves your purpose but in reality you're being misleading at best. Here's the COMPLETE quote (feel free to look it up on Gutenberg)

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

    Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition


Share This