Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less


Chapter 17

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?


       Historians say no one knows for certain who designed Stonehenge or exactly how it was constructed.  However, scientists have long assumed someone created Stonehenge, rather than proposing it randomly appeared. This is the most likely conclusion based on the observable evidence. ¹ Historically, what science “believes” is what appears to be true, unless and until proven otherwise.

       Descartes first principle of philosophy, science and reason states: “Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident”.  And, the history of science tracing prior to ancient Greece on into the present, clearly represents a history of belief based on self-evidence. ²  What humans call "science" when applied correctly, remains what is evidently true based on the known evidence.

       Just as all known evidence indicates for every action there is a reaction, all known evidence indicates no action occurs by it's own volition. ³  All known evidence indicates a universe filled with energy, light, motion and “zillions” of complex parts within ever greater complexity of parts, containing intelligent finite beings of conscience and conscious awareness, requires Primary Cause and Creative Intelligence.

       Supporting evidence is required to overturn previously held positions by the majority of scientists.  Thus, the correct postulate of true science remains “Eternal Creator(s)” until proven otherwise.
4

       Pretending “science” is somehow different than belief in God is an obvious lie.
5  Just as scientists “believe” in black holes and invisible light based on mirrored evidence, much more so mirrored evidence of our Creator is overwhelmingly self-evident.  Just as the burden of proof remained on Copernicus to overturn what otherwise appeared to be true, the burden of proof remains on atheists, as all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

       Basic to wisdom, education, reason and survival itself, is to try to understand and separate what is really true, from whatever fiction the cultures and religions we are born into claim is true.  As Jesus implied, if we don't know what is true, we have no hope of being free.

       What we believe does not dictate what is true.  Rather, what is true about how the universe and life came to be remains the same, regardless of what we believe or, fail to believe.  And whether we label it "science", "religion", “philosophy”, “education” or something else, what is actually true remains the same.

       Some claim to be "agnostic", as if this insulates them from providing evidence.  Those saying there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, are trying to sell the rest of us the greatest of all human superstitions, that the universe either did or could have magically randomly appeared.  Such positions, however far-fetched, require supporting evidence, the same as any other claim.
6

       A virus is several powers of ten larger in comparison to us, than we are compared to just the known universe.  Pretending there is no God is like a virus inside of a microbe hiding under a microchip inside of an ivory computer tower, pretending the computer magically randomly appeared and self-assembled, only infinitely more preposterous.

       Is atheism scientific?
7  You decide. 8


{ See Does Science Really Know What is True? for related information. }



NOTES:

1. Some might ask, why would scientists conclude anything else, other than that someone must have created Stonehenge?  The real question that every atheist and agnostic should be publicly shamed into addressing is, why would anyone assume anything else regarding either Stonehenge, our own beings or the universe at large?  What evidence is there for magically randomly appearing arrangements of large stones or magically, randomly appearing finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, magically randomly appearing energy, light and motion or magically randomly appearing universes?

Some historians and others may quibble with this example, claiming that scientists today understand how Stonehenge was created.  What is often called "true" by various scientists and historians, in reality is contradicted by other competing theories among their peers. What is actually true remains historically and scientifically uncertain, as long as there are two or more competing theories within the scientific community regarding the same observed phenomena.  This article linked here alone describes two competing theories for how Stonehenge was constructed and, there are other competing theories that can be found on the web: Two Theories for How Stonehenge Was Created.

It is currently believed that over time, more than one group of people may have contributed to the construction of Stonehenge.  One theory is that Stonehenge was never finished and thus, what can be observed today represents the remains of only a partially completed project.  Often what is presented in PBS and other videos by practicing scientists and historians as scientific "fact", represents an opinion not shared by a significant amount of their own peers, rather than fairly representing "science".

For example, astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson boldly states in a PBS video that the universe will continue to expand forever and ever, until it is a completely dark burned out remains of it's former glory.  Unfortunately, he fails to mention that according to another PBS video released around the same time, about a third of his colleagues disagree and continue to believe the universe will eventually collapse in on itself, causing another "big bang" and new universe to be born, while another third either have other opinions or claim that their is not enough evidence to know with any degree of certainty.  Some may contend Mr. Tyson might be correct about the eventual fate of the universe, but "might be" does not equal "science", especially when two thirds or even if only 10% of his colleagues disagree.

Richard Dawkins grandly states in a video on YouTube that all of life "evolved" from a singular source in the ocean about 800 million years ago.  Unfortunately since the release of this video, scientists have discovered both macro and micro life in remains carbon-dating over 2 billion years ago, while micro-life currently traces back well beyond 3 billion years.  Today, many scientists believe life may be abundant in the universe and predate our own sun and solar system.  If true, there is no evidence life has ever "evolved" from scratch either on earth or anywhere else in the larger universal reality.  Life may have arisen multiple times on earth, may have existed prior to our own universe and like the Bible says, life may continue to exist forever and ever.

For all we know, life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than representing the simplistic rare chance coincidence "tree" model long assumed by Darwinists.  According to both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, science doesn't know how, when, where or why life began or what form it originally took.  As historian Will Durant consistently demonstrated, it is wise to be skeptical of what historians, scientists and educators claim, as well as being skeptical of religious leaders, astrologers and practitioners of the paranormal. See Does Science Really Know What is True? for supporting links and more information.

2. Descartes: "Rules for the Direction of the Mind", from biography of Descartes, Encyclopedia Britannica.  What modern humans call "science" did not begin with Descartes and Newton and spawn out of a so-called "enlightenment", as some very wrongly claim.  Nor did science begin with Socrates and the Greeks or the ancient Chinese, Egyptians or Sumerians.  Rather, all of human knowledge and understanding, including what today is called "science", at it's foundation has been learned over countless generations tracing back into the mists of historical time.

What scientists and other human beings believe is either based on evidence or, it remains assumption, guesswork and superstition.  And, what scientists and others believe is neither true or accurate from a true universal and beyond perspective.  Rather, it remains true only as far as is evidently true from our time and position in space.  Science is what appears to be true based on the known evidence at any given time and place in human history.  Because new evidence continues to challenge and often discredit previously held scientific conclusions, science today at best, remains only true as far as we know based on the current evidence.  It is wise to remember that only a few hundred years ago, the majority of scientists believed the sun revolves around the earth and, until the late 1920's, the majority of scientists believed there is only one Milky Way galaxy inhabiting an eternal static universe.

Human history clearly demonstrates that even the most fundamental of scientific beliefs are often here today and gone with the historical winds of newly discovered evidence tomorrow. We at best, only understand a very small part of the larger universal picture.  Like the Bible very accurately says, for now we see "in part", one of the most important of all known observations in human history, unfortunately left out of modern American education, along with other even more important information found in the Bible, such as if education doesn't focus on trying to understand what is really true, then we and our children and our children's children have no hope of being free.  See Are Americans Well-Educated? for more information.

It is self-evident that if sticks and stones are chipped and shaped in certain ways, they will cut meat more easily and otherwise make better weapons.  Such knowledge gained through much trial and error very gradually gave rise to more effective tools and weapons, like spears with stone tips, the bow and arrow, the wheel, tools and weapons of bronze and later iron and eventually after many thousands of years, war chariots and the plow.  What human beings today call "science", from the foundational roots up, is based on what is self-evident, what appears to be true based on the current known evidence; what is evidently true as far as scientists can tell.

Two dominate theories today, the speed of light being constant (which some scientists suspect isn't true) and the theoretical existence of dark energy (which some scientists don't believe exists), may or may not be "science" 50 years from now.  Whether or not the speed of light is constant and, whether or not dark energy exists, both assumptions are generally considered to be "science" today and, they remain "science" until proven otherwise.  This is not because either one is necessarily true in the larger universal reality but rather, they remain "science" because they are considered by the majority of scientists to be the best explanation, based on the current known evidence.  That is, they are evidently true, just as it was once evidently true to most scientists that the sun goes around the earth.  It is likely in the stated opinions of several scientists, that one or both of these assumptions is incorrect and thus, will no longer be "science" at some point in the future.

Some scientists also believe this regarding the theory of evolution, while only rarely stating so publicly for fear of ridicule by their colleagues.  How quickly we forget that for over 600 years, the vast majority of scientists believed the sun goes around the earth, far longer than the theory of evolution has existed, some scientists continuing to insist Ptolemy was correct after both Copernicus and Galileo were dead.  Such is the narrow-mindedness and stubborn nature of science in general.  According to historian Will Durant, medical science was held back for at least a generation after the discovery of how human blood circulates because of the refusal of many scientists to admit they had been fundamentally wrong.

Similarly today, some hardcore Darwinists continue to refuse to admit they were fundamentally wrong about so-called "junk" DNA, at least some of which has been clearly demonstrated to have a significant purpose, just as the human appendix, once believed to be left over evolutionary baggage, has also been demonstrated to have a purpose.  And, it is likely all of our so-called "junk" DNA and everything else in our bodies has a purpose, even if science doesn't currently know what it is.  Because of very wrong assumptions based on evolutionary theory, medical science again was held back at least a generation, medical research scientists focusing on only ten percent of our DNA while assuming the rest of it has no purpose.  For more information on the function and purpose of so-called "junk" DNA, see Does Science Really Know What is True?.

Sometimes what is self-evident remains true and correct, such as it is self-evident the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, that rain will always eventually stop, that seeds planted at certain depths and spaced at certain intervals, will yield more and better quality food. Sometimes what is self-evident is later proven to not be true, such as at one time in history, it was self-evident to human beings that the earth is flat, that stars are smaller than the earth and, that the sun goes around the earth.  However, what is self-evident remains "science" unless and until there is evidence to overturn previous assumptions and prove otherwise; supporting evidence always being required to overturn previous assumptions.  Science historically always has been and remains, what is true as far as scientists know, based on the current known evidence.

Although they did not at all agree with each other concerning the nature of God, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein and virtually all prominent historical scientists credited our Creator with being behind the universal reality. This does not prove there is a God, but it does prove that those who pretend the burden of proof remains on those who believe in God are violating the basic rules of science and evidence, clearly established by the known historical track record of science.

The burden of proof remains on those who say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, as they are required to provide evidence to overturn what has been previously established and believed by the majority of scientists.  To claim otherwise is the same as if Copernicus had stood up in a gathering of his peers and claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.  Anyone can claim the moon is larger and warmer than the sun and, anyone can pretend there is no God, but the burden of proof remains on them to overturn what has been previously established by the majority of scientists and other rational people.  To claim otherwise is to openly deny the known history of science and reason.

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and agnostics like Neil DeGrasse Tyson often state that science requires verifiable evidence.  Quite literally, millions of experiments can be set up demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires primary cause.  While on the other hand, neither energy or motion can be verifiably demonstrated to exist unto themselves.  If either Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Tyson were fairly adhering to the rules of science and evidence, they would of course side with the necessity of Primary Cause, which is overwhelmingly verifiable, rather than pretending there is probably no God or might be no God, neither position of which is either rational or scientifically verifiable.  A common problem all atheists and agnostics share is one of lack of supporting evidence.  Neither atheism or agnosticism have any foundation in evidence and thus, they don't belong in a legitimate scientific discussion, other than to point out how truly baseless such positions are, nor do they have any value to either science or the human race.

3. According to a recent Isaac Newton biography, if Newton had not believed in God, he probably would never have become a scientist, so central is God and creation to Newton's entire way of thinking and approach to science.  Newton may not have known everything we know today about light, energy, gravity and motion, but if he was aware of what is often carelessly called "science" today, Newton may well have seriously challenged anyone proposing the universe doesn't need God in order to exist.  Any grade school child might fairly ask what caused the "big bang" and want to know how energy, light, motion and parts within parts can magically exist apart from Primary Cause and Creative Intelligence.  Some scientists say motion can be observed randomly arising from non-motion in quantum fields.

Some quantum theorists however, say that such apparent random motion may result from particles traveling in and out of dimensions that cannot be detected by human beings, thus what appears to be random motion to us is in reality, a particle constantly in motion. Regardless of how right or wrong theorists may be, whatever humans can observe in quantum fields or anywhere else is a result of a theoretical big bang and thus by definition, is not random, any more than flying dust and sparks observed by a microbe inside of an automobile engine, somehow magically randomly appear without any primary cause further on up the chain of events.

Even if the big bang theory isn't correct, which a few hundred minority of scientists today suspect, for a human being to say the reality we can observe requires no Creator, is similar to a microbe, inside of an ignition system, inside of an automobile engine, as the car is being driven down the highway, observing apparently "random" sparks and dust particles zooming in and out of existence and concluding, there is no one driving the car and nobody designed either the observer, the engine, the automobile or the road.  Consider how very much smaller we are compared to just the known universe than a microbe is compared to us and then, consider what an unfathomably great lie and how unfathomably superstitious it is to pretend there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, as if the universe could have magically appeared all by itself, as if atheists and agnostics would somehow know and, the rest of us should just all bow down and take their word for it.

Consider that many scientists believe the universe has eleven or more dimensions and, that matter is eternal and can neither be created or destroyed but rather, only re-arranged.  Then consider what a great contradiction it is to claim matter is eternal while denying there can be an Eternal Creator, as if because we are created to think within three dimensions plus time, there can be no other manner of existence, as if because we are created within a dimension of time, our Creator cannot live both inside and outside of time, as if our Creator is somehow bound by time, bound by our way of thinking and our rudimentary attempts to create a "science", as if a human being trapped within three dimensions plus time could possibly comprehend the workings of an 11-dimensional universal and beyond reality.

Based on the current known modern evidence, we as human beings are neither very big or very small.  Rather, we are trapped inside a universal fishbowl that extends unfathomably far outward and, unfathomably far inward.  Not surprisingly, shortly after scientists announced evidence for the elusive "Higgs-Boson" particle, other scientists announced there are new theoretical particles yet to be discovered.  At least one scientist has proposed that the universe may consist of unimaginably small bits of electrical and/or magnetic energy, which make up the true "fabric" of space upon which everything else is built.  And, that such incredibly small bits of stuff blanket the entire universe, meaning space is not largely empty as it appears to be to us.  Consider how much different the universe might appear to us if somehow, the universal lights were all turned on and we could observe all eleven or more dimensions.  What appears to us today to be largely "empty" space may indeed, be filled with all manner of unimaginable living beings and other wonders of creation.

The truth is, modern science knows very little of what is really true about what we call "the universe" and the larger truth is, human science very likely always will fall rather "short" of a true universal "theory of everything".  A quantum reality that appears "irrational", "strange" and downright "weird" to the human mind today, may in fact be an extremely rational and ordered reality when understood from a true universal and beyond perspective; that is, from the view of our Father in heaven, who Jesus said knows the number of the very hairs on our heads; hairs that are quite large compared to smaller bits of matter known today. Science doesn't know how little or how much our Creator interacts behind the universal veil, nor does science know what lies beyond the big bang or, if indeed there is any such thing as random.

Modern genetic research has discovered that micro-organisms routinely "harvest" DNA from dead organisms outside of their own beings and are able to incorporate it into their own DNA. This single discovery alone significantly challenges modern evolutionary theory assumptions of "random" mutations.  For example, if bacteria living within macro species make changes to their own genome, this could in turn cause larger visible organisms to have seemingly “random” mutations, eventually leading to what science classifies as a “new” species.  And if viruses can do similar to bacteria, God only knows what seemingly “random” mutations might occur on up the chain of larger forms of plant and animal life.

These implications are fundamentally important to the entire theory and concept of evolution by natural selection, which has long assumed far too much without supporting evidence.  To observe changes and then conclude they are “random” requires a great deal of blind faith that many scientists criticize others for having, not to mention it contradicts the entire notion of our universe beginning with a big bang; if our universe began with a bang, everything that follows is by definition, not random.  From lowly viruses and bacteria to ants, spiders and other insects, it is often the little creatures and small parts of matter acting like they supposedly should not, that manage to confound and humble the wise.  See Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA for more information.

As modern scientist Francis Collins has pointed out, if we human beings can create machines that in turn generate a certain amount of "randomness", like a lottery machine for example and, we can create computers and robotic machines that in turn, can perform many functions on their own, then it rationally follows that our Creator can create a grand universal "machine" that is then capable of generating an infinite amount of "random" variety, as well as capable of performing many functions on it's own.  In comparing the grand universal reality to our own ability to design and create, it is forever rational and safe to assume that our Creator can do at least as well as we can.

It is also safe to assume if human beings can create everything from paper clips to buildings and entire cities, that are designed with both artistic and practical applications woven into the same grand design, such as ornate parts of buildings designed to both hold up the roof and be pleasing to the eye, then our Creator can do at least as well, designing the feathers of a peacock with both reproductive and aesthetic purposes.  Consider the arrogance, extreme narrow-mindedness and downright ignorance of anyone pretending otherwise.  See Does Science Really Know What is True? for more information.

4. As noted above, although they did not at all agree with each other concerning the nature of God, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein and virtually all prominent historical scientists credited our Creator with being behind the universal reality.  Based on the established rules of science and evidence, clearly displayed as established in the historical record, it requires supporting EVIDENCE to overturn a position of the majority of scientists.  Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  Eternal Creator (or Eternal Creators) is the only known position in all of human history that satisfies origins and rationally explains our own existence and, the existence of the larger universal reality.  Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains "science" until rationally clearly demonstrated otherwise by overwhelming scientifically documented conclusive supporting evidence.  Those pretending otherwise openly deny the known history of human education, science and reason.

5. According to the Bible and unlike many both religious and non-religious modern people pretend, faith is based on "the evidence of things not seen" and, we believe in our unseen Creator based on the visible creation.  There is no difference between believing in our invisible Creator based on the visible evidence, than there is in believing in invisible light and invisible black holes based on the visible evidence.  The existence of our Creator is far more overwhelmingly "self-evident" than the existence of invisible light, black holes and all other evidence combined.  As Thomas Jefferson stated, it is historically "self-evident" that our Creator has "endowed" us with "certain inalienable rights", based on our shared human conscience.

This claim by Jefferson, an avid student of the Bible, clearly traces from it, which says that God has written his law on the hearts of humanity.  Unlike many modern educators conveniently fail to mention, the Declaration of Independence very deliberately underscores that human rights trump all governmental and other human authority, because they are granted by our Creator, who the Declaration refers to as the "Supreme Judge"  And thus, human rights have "supreme" authority over all human authority.  This is a far more powerful statement carrying infinitely more weight, than the standard modern so-called "progressive" notion that we have human rights just because we believe that we do, which has no historical, scientific or other basis in evidence.

Similar laws against murder, theft, adultery and false witness appear in diverse cultures, often having no contact with each other, spread throughout the historical record.  According to human disease expert Francis Collins, a recognized global authority on DNA research, modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly indicates deliberate design and not random processes.  And, also according to Collins, who refers to himself as a "Darwinist", the historical fact of similar laws appearing in diverse cultures, many having no contact with each other, clearly demonstrates a deliberately designed shared human conscience that cannot be rationally explained by modern Darwinian theory.

The majority of scientists today believe in what is called "dark energy", while openly admitting that dark energy cannot be scientifically verified and, it's existence may or may not be verifiable in the future.  Belief in dark energy is what is called an "inferred" position, one that cannot be verified by any known scientific or other method.  And yet some of these same scientists continue to openly deny the overwhelming evidence for God, even though there is far more evidence for our Creator than for dark energy, dark matter, black holes, invisible light, the sun being larger and warmer than the moon and the rest of what modern science believes combined.  For more information about dark energy and the meaning of "inferred" in relation to science and the scientific method, please Link Here.

6. Many atheists vainly imagine they can get out of providing evidence for their positions, by claiming that atheism makes no claims.  As clearly demonstrated in Note #7 below, atheism makes several claims.  For example, to claim to "disbelieve" in God is to claim to doubt the universe is created, as God by common definition is Creator of the universe (more details in Note #7 below).  Doubt that is unsupported by evidence as to why there is doubt, has no meaning, purpose or value to anybody.  Just as if Copernicus had claimed to "disbelieve" the sun revolves around the earth, what value would such a claim have had to either scientists or the rest of humanity if it wasn't supported by any evidence?  One may as well claim to disbelieve the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, as to make any other claim of disbelief without supporting evidence.

Likewise agnostics, if they want to be taken seriously, must provide evidence as to how otherwise they and the universe could exist.  To claim to not know if there is a God or not, is to claim the universe might have magically randomly appeared.  To contend that no evidence is required, is to say that Copernicus could have stood up in a room filled with his peers, told them he "disbelieved" that the sun revolves around the earth and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence, reason or rhyme as to why he would claim to doubt what was at the time, mainstream science.  Obviously, if Copernicus had done such a thing, he wouldn't have been taken seriously, nor would his name be in the history books.

And just like Copernicus was required to do, atheists and agnostics can either put up or shut up.  If someone is going to pretend the universe either did, probably did or might have magically randomly appeared, those of us who try to live in the world of sanity and reason by basing what we believe on evidence, require that they provide conclusive supporting evidence.  Until such time, the burden of proof remains on those grossly contradicting ALL of the known scientific and other evidence, that among other things, clearly demonstrates the existence of energy and motion requires Primary Cause.

Additionally, such self-contradicting non-scientific charlatans grossly contradict the stated positions of Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins, who ALL credit our Creator with being behind the universal reality.  As discussed above and as the history of science clearly dictates, EVIDENCE is required to overturn previously held positions of the majority of scientists, in particular when they are plainly the key scientific giants of human history.  And even more particularly, when ALL of the known evidence demonstrates Eternal Creator, the only truth known to humanity that satisfies Primary Cause.

For those who don't know or have otherwise been lied to by Richard Dawkins and others who pretend they can speak for historical people like Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin whenever such historical people happen to disagree with their twisted positions, Einstein denied being both an atheist and a pantheist.  According to biographer Walter Isaacson, considered the leading living Einstein authority, Einstein was extremely upset when contemporary atheists claimed him as one of their own.  The Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with Mr. Isaacson, that Einstein was not an atheist and there are several different reliable quotes of Einstein discussing his views of God as opposed to religion, which atheists consistently misrepresent as being the same thing, even though neither Einstein or Darwin nor any legitimate scientist or historian would ever pretend that God and religion are the same.

Charles Darwin, clarified his position by crediting our Creator with being behind the universal reality and processes of life in all five subsequent editions of "On the Origin of Species". Darwin also wrote in a well-authenticated and still existent letter a couple years prior to his death: "One can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist". . ."I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God" and, he went on to say his mind might be best described as "agnostic, but not entirely".  Because "agnostic" at that time sometimes referred to doubt in religions and other human claims about God, rather than doubt in the existence of God, Darwin could credit our Creator with being behind the universal reality while defining his mind as being "agnostic, but not entirely", without contradiction.

Scottish philosopher David Hume, born about 100 years prior to Darwin, is an example of someone whose personal religious views like Darwin, remain ambiguous in comparison to how agnosticism is usually defined today.  As noted elsewhere in this book, definitions of words often change over historical time and thus, what someone intended by the use of specific words and phrases in previous centuries can be misinterpreted by later generations.  This is particularly true in regards to what words like "deism", "church" and "religion" meant to American founders like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and Madison, as opposed to how these same terms are commonly defined today.

For example, as far as history knows, every American founder believed in a God who intervenes within the affairs of humanity, unlike how deism is commonly defined today. Though Thomas Paine's view regarding this is apparently unknown, the four noted clearly believed in a pro-active God.  Likewise, separation of "church" and state refers to organized institutional religion and very clearly, based on the known writings and actions of the American founders, does not refer to or imply separation of God and state, as this concept is very wrongly applied today.  See Does the ACLU Really Support the 1st Amendment? for more information.  It is worthy to note that unlike many educators and others falsely claim, Thomas Paine denied being an atheist and discussed his views on God several times within his various writings.  Because of gross historical misrepresentations by militant atheists and others today, many modern Americans remain ignorant of the fact that many historical people of note, including both Jesus and Paul, as well as Socrates, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Einstein and a long list of others, believed in God while rejecting the religions of their societies.  To fail to understand that God and religion don't belong in the same category, is to gravely misunderstand human history completely, entirely and altogether.

7. Atheists often email me the same exact talking points which they apparently believe to be unique clever positions, as if they all have a copy of the same atheist bible.  One of the most common talking points sent by atheists is the following: "Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods".  The problem with this statement is that it is a lie unto itself, as there are at least six claims contained within this single statement; 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not or probably not created and 4-5) there is no God or probably no God and, there are no gods or probably no gods.  A sixth claim contained within this statement of obvious self-delusion is, that the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster dictionary and various other generally reliable sources are somehow, all in great error concerning how atheism should be properly defined (see below).

It is self-evident claim #2 is a lie, as this single sentence itself contains at least six claims. Regarding the first claim, which is also an obvious lie, the default position of science and reason is, there is a physical reality containing various phenomena called "universe" or to be more concise, simply "there is a universe".  The default question then becomes, how and why is there a universe?  Atheism isn't a default position of anything, nor can it rationally explain anything at all and as such, atheism remains just a faulty position, having no value to science, reason and the human race.  Regarding claim #3, God in the modern age is defined by billions of people and by both Google definitions search and the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, as Creator of the universe.  To claim to "disbelieve" in God is to claim to doubt the universe is created, which has no more scientific value than to doubt Stonehenge was created or, to doubt anything else.  Doubt without supporting evidence as to why one would doubt, has no value whatsoever to anyone.

Anyone can make a claim regarding anything or claim to doubt anything.  For example, anyone can claim to disbelieve the sun will appear in the sky anywhere on earth next year and, they can also claim the burden of proof remains on those insisting the sun will appear, pretending as atheists do, that to "disbelieve" lets them off the hook of providing verifiable evidence.  Such a claim doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any value to the human race.  An atheist might argue that we have evidence for the sun appearing in the sky each and every year as far back as history knows.  And that is true, but it is also true we have evidence that the existence of energy and motion require Primary Cause, as far back as the history of science goes and, as far as can be verifiably demonstrated in the modern age. Atheism and agnosticism are obviously no better than any other superstitious non-evidence based position.

If someone were to tell a child in public school that the computer they are using is not created, such a child would no doubt want to know how otherwise it happens to exist.  And likewise, if atheists and agnostics are going to lie to God's children and pretend God doesn't exist, probably doesn't exist or might not exist, we want to know how otherwise, energy, light, motion, intelligence, conscious awareness and quad-zillions of parts within parts putting every computer on earth to shame, somehow happen to magically exist.  At the bottom-line, atheists would have us believe that not only every computer, but also everything else that can be observed or otherwise detected by human beings, somehow magically arose all by itself.  If no one created the human brain, then everything human beings have ever created at the bottom line, somehow magically appeared.  Most mature human beings eventually cease to believe in magic.

The general globally accepted definition among scholars for atheism is for some strange reason, far different than what is noted above, which isn't surprising given that atheists in general habitually misrepresent the known evidence.  See Does Science Really Know What is True? for more details.  From the Encyclopedia Britannica, representing a globally recognized scholarly consensus: "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. . .Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."  According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, atheism is not only defined as disbelief in God, atheism is also defined as "the doctrine that there is no deity."  Atheism according to both sources, is a claim that the universe is not created.

Agnosticism is no better, as it is a claim the universe might not be created, which also requires supporting evidence to remain within the bounds of science and reason.  Language is not a science and at best, language is an imperfect communication tool.  If someone claimed to "disbelieve" in love, it would be understood by most rational people to mean they don't believe in love.  Perhaps someone should point out to such self-contradicting atheists, that trying to hide behind human language in order to worm out of the scientific requirement of having to provide evidence to back up any and every claim in regards to the physical reality called "universe", doesn't serve to make them look any less dishonest.

The universe and everything contained therein is evidence for God, just like what are commonly called "x-rays" taken by a physician and music heard from a car radio, are evidence of invisible light.  Atheists and agnostics, just like the rest of us, are required by the accepted rules of science and evidence, to provide evidence for any claim they make, however magical, baseless or otherwise absurd it may be.  As far as there being no plurality of gods, I have no particular quarrel with such a claim, although one might fairly ask, how would they know?  And one might also fairly ask, how would atheists know any of the other claims contained within their ridiculously absurd grossly superstitious positions?

It is often said in the modern age, "God is not a question for science" and it is common practice to divide science and religion, including belief in God, into two neat non-connected categories, as if God doesn't know anything about how the universe God created came to be or functions.  Belief in God is labeled "faith based", while science is supposedly based on evidence, even though throughout the vast majority of human history, no such distinction existed.  According to the Bible for example, "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and we believe in God based on the overwhelming evidence revealed in creation.  This is no different than how modern science is commonly applied today in relation to dark energy, dark matter, black holes, invisible light and tracings of particles on photographic plates.  Not to mention, the entire theory of evolution is based on an apparent progression of changes that have never actually been either witnessed or otherwise directly detected while occurring.

There is no difference between believing in God based on the visible mirrored evidence, than believing in black holes and invisible light based on the visible mirrored evidence, except in the minds of self-contradicting human beings.  Belief in God based on evidence is found in the historical record long prior to Socrates and the Greeks, who would undoubtedly utterly scorn any foolish notion of separating God from science.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins has publicly stated, the "God question" is central to science.  See Does Science Really Know What is True? for a more detailed discussion on modern atheism.

It is both dangerous and illegal in most states for a teacher in the United States to discuss deliberate design in a public high school science class, even though according to unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University and the University of Chicago, over 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American teachers believe in God and by default, believe in some form of design.  Rather than teach our children the truth, that some scientists believe in deliberate conception, design and creation and some don't, those who pretend to speak for Thomas Jefferson and the other American founders prefer that we deliberately lie to our children by omission instead, ignoring the scientific opinions of 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American educators.

It is perhaps more than fair to say if these same pretenders to the throne of freedom were to whisper a little too loudly near the grave of Thomas Jefferson that Mr. Jefferson couldn't discuss evidence for creation in a science classroom, that he would rise from the dead and immediately make plans for a second revolution.  Based on everything known to history that the American founders said and did, it is very fair, correct and accurate to conclude they firmly believed in the right of a public science school teacher and anyone else within our borders, to freely say what they believe the evidence demonstrates anywhere within our borders, on both public and private property and especially, in a public school classroom, without fear of any economic or other recrimination.  This is the foundation of what freedom of speech is, to be able to freely speak without fear what one fundamentally believes, regardless of who may or may not agree or how accurate or wrong one may be.

As discussed in Note #2 above, Descartes stated as his first rule of the mind (i.e., Descartes' primary foundation of philosophy, science and reason), "accept nothing as true that is not self-evident".  This statement by Descartes is not invented out of thin air but rather, it comes from an analysis of the known history of science, where scientists have long assumed what is self-evident to be true until proven otherwise.  Self-evidence, rather than being non-scientific, represents the highest bar in science at the time of Descartes and, also in the time of Jefferson and arguably today.  It was "science" at one time to conclude that the earth is flat, until there was evidence indicating otherwise.  It was practicing correct "science” for Ptolemy to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth, which remained the majority held scientific theory for much longer than Darwin's theory of evolution has existed, until there was conclusive evidence demonstrating otherwise.  And, as Einstein himself initially believed, it was practicing correct “science” to maintain there is only one galaxy in a static universe, until conclusively proven otherwise by Edwin Hubble and others in the 20th Century.

It is NEVER correct science to just say the earth is spherical instead of flat, without providing any evidence or, that there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator of the universe, without providing conclusive supporting evidence as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist.  What is self-evident remains true and correct "science" until proven otherwise, even if some hypothesis eventually proven accurate may have already been stated; for example, some scientists disputed the earth-centered theory prior to Copernicus and, some disputed the static theory of a universe with only one galaxy prior to Edwin Hubble.  It is one thing to suspect a long held majority scientific position is wrong, such as many scientists today suspect some if not all of Einstein's theories may be inaccurate.  But it is quite another thing to provide conclusive evidence supporting a BETTER explanation regarding time, energy, motion, gravity and light.

If Einstein had not provided a BETTER explanation than Newton, he most likely would never have been included in a history book.  Just having a different explanation is not “science” unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated by evidence, to be a BETTER explanation than what the majority of scientists previously believed.  Until someone provides a BETTER explanation for the observable universal reality, that BETTER and more accurately explains and satisfies origins than Jesus has already taught us, "before Abraham was, I AM", ETERNAL CREATOR remains “correct science”.  In order to overturn this long held historical position, atheists are required, by the established history of science and rules of science and evidence, to provide a BETTER explanation.  A different explanation is not "science" unless and until it can BETTER satisfy origins, which so far no human being has been able to do, nor will anyone likely do in a trillion, trillion, trillion and more years.

I have never met or heard of a successful gambler who would remotely consider taking odds in favor of atheism.  As former atheist Antony Flew relates in his book "There Is a God", an actual scientific experiment conducted in the United Kingdom provided six caged monkeys with computer keyboards and after a month of random banging away, not a single word resulted on fifty pages of randomly typed digits, not even an "a" or “I” properly spaced.  From there, the odds of a Shakespearean sonnet being randomly created were calculated as 10 to the 690th power.  To provide a comparison to how great of a number that is, the sub-atomic parts which make up all of the stars, planets and everything else in the entire universe, are estimated to be 10 to the 80th power. And, that is just to randomly produce a single Shakespearean sonnet.  Consider how much greater of a number would be necessary to produce Shakespeare's brain and then, how much greater to produce all of the other life forms, planets, stars and everything else in the universe and, one can kind of begin to grasp just how how utterly and entirely insane a position of atheism truly is.

Based on drawings and later early recorded writings, the sun was believed to be larger and warmer than the moon by people far and wide across the earth, long before there was conclusive scientific evidence or even a concept of "science".  This conclusion was based solely on self-evidence that the sun appears to be larger than the moon most of the time and, usually feels warmer.  Yet, the self-evidence for deliberate design and creation of the universe is far beyond any evidence for the sun in relation to the moon.

Even before more conclusive evidence based on modern science observations and calculations, why would anyone in their right mind conclude the opposite, that the moon is larger and warmer than the sun?  Yet, this is what atheism continues to do today in the face of the astronomically overwhelming evidence of creation.  At least in ancient times, people had the observable evidence of the moon as a counter-intuitive possibility, while there is zero evidence for a conclusion of atheism, not even an obviously smaller and cooler moon to offset the overwhelming glaring evidence demonstrating deliberate conception, design and creation !!!

It is not up to believers in the self-evident obvious to prove that the obvious is true.  What is self-evident is not always correct, but it is often correct and it remains correct until proven otherwise; such as the self-evident conclusion that the sun is warmer than the moon, the self-evident conclusion that rain will always eventually stop, that colder weather will always eventually follow warmer weather, that a given amount of seeds planted in spaced rows at certain depths, will in normal weather years, yield an approximate amount of food, that stones and timber beams constructed in certain ways will support a roof and keep a human being from falling threw a second-story floor.  These are long held human civilization conclusions based on self-evidence, all of which existed long before a concept of "science" existed.  Just as it was up to Copernicus and others to provide a BETTER explanation than Ptolemy and, just as it was up to Einstein to provide a BETTER explanation than Newton, the "onus" remains on atheists to demonstrate by evidence, a better explanation for universal existence, rather than the other way around, as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in very great historical, philosophical, scientific, logical, rational, intellectual and other very great error pretend.

There is no evidence for a position of atheism while there is overwhelming evidence that randomness can never produce anything at all.  If matter has always existed, as some scientists postulate, why doesn't it just stay in whatever state it was initially in?  There is no evidence that energy can magically arise and cause a big bang to go boom or that motion can exist apart from Primary Cause, that conscious awareness and intelligence can magically arise from bits of non-conscious matter, that so-called "universal laws", systems or life processes called “evolution”, "natural selection" or any other process or system can magically exist unto itself.  Atheism represents the blind faith embrace of gross superstition, having no foundation in evidence.

The late Pete Seeger once remarked that God has given us a brain presumably with the expectation that we will attempt to use it.  There is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and thus, to say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to say, "I don't believe in the overwhelming evidence in front of my eyes, ears, nose and mouth, nor do I trust the reasoning capability of my own brain."  The question of "where did God come from" is answered by "before Abraham was, I AM".  This statement satisfies origins and thus, it remains the correct primary postulate of science, philosophy and reason, until proven otherwise with conclusive supporting evidence--good luck on that one.

8. If the universe is not created, then it must have magically appeared.  There is no evidence known within human experience indicating any third option.  Everything that human beings have ever constructed requires conscious awareness, conception and construction in order to exist.  And, there is no evidence within human experience that either energy, motion, light, universal, evolutionary or any other processes or quad-zillions upon quad-zillions of parts within parts, can magically randomly appear or otherwise exist unto themselves.

Nor is there any evidence that finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness can magically randomly arise from bits of matter or that the far more complex "dual" language of DNA than once assumed, can somehow magically exist unto itself.  Consider for example, that over 100 distinct species or subspecies of micro-organisms have been discovered within 2-3 drops of ocean water, among organized colonies of organisms so small they number in the billions of billions of billions within the same 2-3 drops of water and yet, each species appears to have it's own distinct communication system differing from the rest.  As already noted, atheism remains just a faulty position, having no foundation in evidence and, openly denying ALL of the known scientific and historical evidence and, openly defying odds beyond any conceivable number stretching beyond infinity.

Richard Dawkins has repeatedly stated he doesn't believe in either God or the spaghetti monster, apparently believing this to be a clever position.  Perhaps someone should have pointed out to him that if one eliminates the spaghetti monster, they aren't left having to explain how they and the rest of the universe happen to exist.  Comparing God with the spaghetti monster isn't fairly the same as the common elementary school logic 1-A mistake of comparing apples with oranges.  Obviously to say such would be completely and entirely unfair to the average elementary school pre-logic 1-A class student.  How the ancient Greeks would likely laugh before expelling poor Mr. Dawkins from the Greek Academy for life.

Unfortunately for atheists, Mr. Dawkins seems to be more rational than the majority of them. At least Mr. Dawkins, who at one time had a photo of himself posted on his own website, wearing a t-shirt that read "Atheists for Jesus", apparently understands that in spite of his supposed God "delusion", Jesus seems to have been more than a little smarter than the average guy on the street or otherwise, hiding within the ivory towers of Oxford University.

Perhaps Mr. Dawkins, being a behavioral scientist, is aware of something many atheists apparently are not.  Many if not most atheists pretend that war is caused by religion, ignoring the obvious fact that human science and education have been embedded with war ever since the rise of ancient Sumer, ignoring the obvious fact that both atheists and theists participate in war and, ignoring the obvious fact that the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, WWI, WWII and many other wars, have been fought primarily over intellectual idealism rather than religion.  And last but by no means least, ignoring the obvious fact that the Crusades and every other known war in human history, can be traced to the taking of or protection of land, gold and other forms of wealth and, usually about both.  See Are Atheists Really Honest About War? for more information.

Modern science agrees that war is not caused by religion.  Rather, modern behavioral science evidence agrees with Jesus, that war and other human oppression arises from what is within every religious and non-religious human being, which is what all of the known historical and scientific evidence clearly demonstrates (see Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" & Related for more information).  Perhaps there is a good reason why Mr. Dawkins would wear an "atheists for Jesus" t-shirt.  After all, for some strange reason, Jesus seems to have been a whole lot smarter than the rest of us, even without the advantage of Wikipedia and the internet, the Encyclopedia Britannica and modern education, history and science, go figure. . .

9. There is a very simple test that anyone with a grade school education can easily perform for themselves.  If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for how you and the rest of the universe happen to exist, then Jesus already taught us for free; "before Abraham was, I AM".  If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do.  Now that you have demonstrated to yourself that atheism and agnosticism are dishonest, you can freely admit that you are a sinner who needs God's help, just like the rest of us sinners.

See also Does Science Really Know What is True? for more information.



Bonus Chapter

IS THE TELEVISION SERIES
“COSMOS” REMOTELY HONEST?


       According to the television series “Cosmos”, life “evolved” from “random, unguided, blind, natural” processes.  This grandiose superstition of spontaneously appearing life is just randomly pulled out of a black hole rabbit's hat, without a single shred of supporting evidence provided.

       Perhaps the reason no evidence is provided is because there is none.  If we set aside how human science arbitrarily chooses to divide life up into various categories and instead, we view life as a larger part of the universal whole, a much different picture emerges.

       Based on estimated “zillions” of exo-planets and, based on the fact necessary ingredients for life have been discovered far beyond earth, many scientists today believe life is abundant in the universe.  More importantly, many believe life probably existed long prior to our sun and solar system.

       It's fair to assume what causes life came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and, is “seeded” abundantly throughout the greater Cosmos.  Where eventually, life arises on untold zillions of worlds, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us.  The most likely conclusion is that life is embedded along with the rest of the universe, within a grand cosmic “mural” of ever-changing creation art, very far over the collective heads of humanity.

       If one were to ask how far, consider that many scientists believe the universe has 10-11 or more dimensions, of which we can only detect three plus time.  Consider we ourselves are a “bio-universe” to an estimated ten trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies.

       Suppose our planet shrank down to the size of a single atom but otherwise remained intact.  An atom is inconceivably smaller than a microbe, yet very large in comparison to various sub-atomic particles.  Suppose our now inconceivably tiny planet was located within a much larger microbe “galaxy”, the microbe in turn inhabiting a very much larger human being “universe”.

       Suppose astronomers on this infinitesimally tiny planet, using the latest technology to penetrate far beyond their atom-sized world, while attempting to grasp the true nature of the inconceivably larger human being “universe” the microbe is inhabiting, proposed a “multiverse” theory of innumerable other human-sized universes.  Now we have just a tiny fraction sense of the difficulty of trying to understand, from our incomprehensibly limited earth-based view, when, where or how life initially arose.

       Consider the arrogance of people on this atom-sized planet pretending to know that life within the scope of their detection, somehow magically “evolved”; that nobody created their atom-sized world, the microbe it inhabits, the larger human being or other “multiverse” human beings.  And all the while, denying that the larger buildings we humans inhabit are designed and created.

       Suppose we add to this unfathomably dark and complex puzzle, several dimensions these scientists cannot detect, dimensions which human-sized scientists on our actual-sized earth, likewise can't detect.  Is it possible for science to either know or have any way of knowing, that life evolved from “random, blind, unguided, natural” processes?

       Is the television series “Cosmos” remotely honest?  You decide. ¹




NOTES:

1. Another way to somewhat comprehend the incredibly limited understanding of human science here in the 21st Century, is to consider the following: Not very long ago, the vast majority of scientists believed the sun revolves around the earth.  And, it is fair to say from an earth-based perspective, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.  Even though it may appear from an earth-bound view that the sun revolves around the earth, today we know that from a larger view outside of our solar system looking in, the earth instead revolves around the sun.

Likewise, when science decides to divide life up into species, if we insist on holding onto a very narrow-minded view, it may appear from such a myopic view, that one species "evolves" from another species.  But today, there is strong evidence that life most likely exists elsewhere and, strong evidence life may well be abundant in the universe, existing prior to our own sun and solar system.  When we adjust our myopic earth-bound perspective to this larger probability, which the television series Cosmos attempts to do, a very different picture emerges, similar to the earth going around the sun model championed by Copernicus and Galileo, as being a better understanding of the same phenomena of what appears from our earth-bound view, to be the sun rising and setting in the sky.

Rather than one species giving rise to another species, the larger view is that all of life continues to adapt and change.  It is not true that one species "evolves" from another species any more than it is true that the sun revolves around the earth.  Rather, what is really true, as far as we know today, is that the entire universe is in a constant state of transition and re-generation and, all of life constantly adapts and changes along with the rest of the ever-changing cosmic reality.  It is correct to conclude that life as a whole and entire entity, along with the rest of the universal cosmic reality, is created to adapt and change within ever-changing universal environments, so that life itself, as a whole entity, can survive.  Human science then artificially divides life up as it arbitrarily chooses to do so.

It is irrational to pretend that an artificial division of science gives rise to another artificial division, as if human classification somehow dictates the reality of how life and the larger universe functions, rather than as is most obviously the case, the other way around.  This is easily demonstrated by the fact that life continued to adapt and change and otherwise function as it does, when all birds were simply called "birds" and, there was no concept of "species", "genus" or any of the other modern artificial divisions of life.  Life continues to adapt and change whether or not we call all spiders simply a "spider" or, we divide them into a thousand or more species.  Such artificial human divisions obviously have no bearing how life either came to exist or functions within the larger universal reality.

See Bonus Chapter: Do Species Really Evolve from Other Species? located below the notes for Are Americans Well-Educated? and Does Science Really Know What is True? for more information.




Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © Jaunary 7th, 2014 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © February 1st, 2014 by Freedom Tracks Records.

No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.