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.

Absence of Evidence - The Atheist Copout

It still galls me that atheists require perfect evidence to believe in God, but will settle for a half-ass theory to believe in evolution.

From Richard Dawkins to Johnny A. Theist down the road, the catchcry is "There is no evidence for God". When asked exactly what type of evidence they require in order to believe, of course they would not settle for anything less than perfect evidence, the type of peer-reviewed evidence demanded by science. But, there are way too many problems with this, including that peers can only review based on their current level of knowledge and understanding. Given a few more decades, chances are that the same peers would review somewhat differently. So, pardon the irony, but science is not an exact science.

A relevant question would be: What kind of evidence would it take to go from being an atheist to, let's say, an agnostic or simply one who shuts up and reserves judgement until clearer evidence is produced? The Catholic Church abounds with such evidence. It will never be scientifically peer-reviewed because science does not yet have to tools to deal with anything supernatural. And if a scientist believed some of this evidence, chances are they wouldn't want their peers to know about it.

A dog has more sensory perception than man, but we have to accept that the tools of science are wielded by mere men. It may take centuries before science can seriously study supernatural phenomena.

So, what evidence can we gather from the Catholic Church that supports the existence of God. The question is: where to begin? Here are a few starters:

1. Incorrupt bodies of saints (the genuine ones, yes we know there have been hoaxes)


2. Stigmata (again, the genuine ones), e.g. Padre Pio


3. Marian apparitions - e.g. Medjugorje, where seers still see the Blessed Virgin Mary today and which has been studied by three teams of scientists since 1981


4. Eucharistic Miracles - there have been too many to count and YouTube even has videos of them.


5. Sun miracles, e.g. at Fatima and Medjugorje
   
6. Other empirical and completely mind-boggling evidence, such as the image of Our Lady in a rock at Las Lajas, Colombia. Scientists drilled that rock and found the image to be coloured in the rock itself to a depth of several feet!

I've tried to include modern examples such as Medjugorje, which are subject to even greater and knowledgable scrutiny than those of past eras. I could have included the Fatima miracle, during which 70,000 people simultaneously witnessed an awesome solar display, but the older something is, unfortunately the more easy it is to dismiss.
I fear the problem with atheism is that its participants are generally a dishonest bunch, willing to find anything to absolve them from the necessity of studying these evidences. If they studied the scientific reports on the visionaries at Medjugorje as much as they studied their "Popular Science" magazine, there would no longer be any sensible reason to be an atheist. In fact, you'd be a fool to still call yourself an atheist.

Click here for information on the scientific investigations carried out on the Medjugorje visionaries.