[b]The common assumption that science
contradicts religion can be illustrated
either from your own personal
experience, if this is relevant, or by
quoting the words of atheistic scientists,
philosophers or journalists. Richard
Dawkins, for example, has described the
idea of God as “a very naïve, childish
concept”, and similar comments have
been made by many other Darwinian
scientists.
Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, for
instance, stated in a 1997 book review:
“The problem is to get [people] to reject
irrational and supernatural explanations
of the world, the demons that exist only
in their imaginations, and to accept a
social and intellectual apparatus, Science,
as the only begetter of truth.” Another
typical comment is that of Eugenie Scott,
of the American National Centre for
Science Education, who observed in 1994:
“You can’t put an omnipotent deity in a
test tube.” Such quotes drive home the
charge that science is the only path to
objective truth and is therefore in moralict
with the subjective feelings and irrational
dogmas supposedly characteristic of
Christianity.



(1) If science contradicts religion, how do
atheists explain the fact that most of the
great scientists of the past believed in
God and took the Bible seriously? The
Institute of Creation Research (USA), for
example, lists 31 such scientists together
with the scientific disciplines they helped
to establish. They include Kepler
(astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle
(chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus
(systematic biology), Faraday
(electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative
anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister
(antiseptic surgery), Mendel (genetics),
and many other equally famous names.




(2) If religion is an obstacle to science,
how do atheists get round the fact that
empirical science first arose in Christian
Europe, three centuries before the rise of
Darwinism? It did so precisely because of
the almost universal belief in a Creator
God. This gave the founders of modern
science the confidence they needed that
the natural world was orderly and
therefore capable of systematic
investigation. They expected to find ‘law’
in Nature because they believed in a
Lawgiver. Or, to use another analogy, they
assumed that the ‘Book of Nature’ had a
readable ‘text’ because Nature had an
Author.




(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of
modern science believe in God? For one
very simple reason: the natural world
bears all the hallmarks of intelligent
design. To take only a few examples:
hands seem designed for grasping objects
and making tools; the human body is
equipped with an immune system for
combating disease; birds have an instinct
to build nests for their young and escape
winter through migration; eyes and ears
have the precise structures required for
seeing and hearing; living creatures have
the digestive systems they need to
process the particular foods their bodies
depend on; sexual organs seem designed
for reproduction.
Is this not powerful evidence for the
existence of an Intelligent Designer who
created the universe and is the Author of
life? That has certainly been the view of
most of the great philosophers and
thinkers of the past, like Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Bacon, Newton,
etc. Even famous sceptics like David Hume
(18th century) and John Stuart Mill (19th
century) recognised the credibility of the
‘design’ argument (or ‘teleological proof’)
for God’s existence – as did Immanuel
Kant (18th century), despite his rejection
of all the traditional arguments for God’s
existence except the moral[/b]

(4) Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being. This objection, however, though emotionally powerful, is not a logical one because the reality of evil does not cancel out the extensive evidence of intelligent and benevolent design in Nature. To use two analogies: the existence of badly constructed buildings in one particular area does not disprove the existence of competent architects elsewhere, anymore than the existence of hatred within some families disproves the reality of human love in others. What the problem of evil does is to raise challenging questions such as: why does God allow it? What is its origin? What, if anything, has God done about it? It does not obliterate the many traces of His goodness and creativity in the world around us. Furthermore, part of the evidence for God’s existence and goodness is that very moral standard which enables us to detect evil and complain about it! Atheism, by contrast, cannot make sense of the problem of evil because it cannot explain how we can attach any objective significance to our thoughts and values if we are merely accidental by-products of an ultimately random and purposeless universe.




(5) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology. At the cosmological level, it has become increasingly apparent that the physical laws and parameters governing our universe (e.g. the force of gravity, the energy density of empty space, the difference in mass between neutrons and protons, etc.) are so exquisitely fine-tuned to permit the emergence of life, that even the tiniest alteration in any of these laws and parameters would have catastrophic consequences. Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe! Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.” That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.” Or to put it even more plainly, consider the verdict of Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: “The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility – all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.”

[b] (6) The realms of microbiology and biochemistry provide equally compelling evidence that life in all its forms is the product of intelligent design rather than unguided natural forces. For example, how do atheists explain the origin and existence of complex biological information systems like DNA, whose chemical structure within every human cell contains the coded instructions for creating the proteins out of which our bodies are built? Each one of the thirty thousand genes embedded in our twenty- three pairs of chromosomes can yield as many as 20,500 different kinds of proteins! Is it likely that this extraordinary biological ‘software’ arose by chance? To quote science writer, George Sim Johnson’s article, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right?’ ( Wall Street Journal , 15/10/99): “Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopaedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.” And if this astounding fact were not sufficient in itself to indicate the presence of intelligent design in Nature, Australian geneticist, Michael Denton, points out that the biological information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived - a number estimated to be approximately one thousand million – “could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.” Illustra Media’s documentary video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, shows how DNA serves as the information storehouse for a finely choreographed manufacturing process by which the right amino acids are linked together with the right bonds in the right sequence to produce the right kind of proteins that fold in the right way to build biological systems. Detailed study of this “absolutely mind-boggling” procedure helped to convince Dean Kenyon, America’s leading chemical evolutionist, that unguided naturalistic processes could not explain the origin of life, as he had once believed. On the contrary, he argues: “This new realm of molecular genetics [is] where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth.”




(7) Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self- explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause? The cosmological argument for God’s existence addresses this vital question, and is based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing – a self-evident truth supported by logic and experience. To state the obvious: the absence of something not only cannot at the same time account for its presence; it is also a principle whose truthfulness is constantly confirmed in our daily lives. We never see meals appearing from nowhere, symphonies composing themselves, or babies materialising out of thin air. This means that for anything to exist, it must either be self-sufficient and therefore have always existed (i.e. be self-existent); or it must be the product or effect of something else that is self-existent. Furthermore, the concept of self- sufficiency implies that the self-existent Being supporting the existence of all other beings, must necessarily be an unchanging Being. It must be in full and constant possession of all its properties and attributes, because it cannot call into existence a quality, characteristic, or power, it does not already possess. In other words, we cannot explain the mystery of existence without acknowledging the ultimate necessity of grounding it in a self-sufficient Being whose own existence is necessary, unchanging, and therefore eternal. Given these self-evident truths, does our knowledge of the universe suggest that it is self-existent? Obviously not, since all organic life has a beginning and an end (animals and humans are born, live, decay and die) and inorganic structures and processes are subject to constant alteration and change. Even if the universe had no beginning but is instead the product of the continuous creation of matter, it still lacks that attribute of self- sufficiency which is the essence of self- existence, since the question that still arises is ‘what accounts for the creation or appearance of matter?’ Where does the ‘stuff’ of the universe continually come from? Why does change occur at all? Who or what brings it about? If, on the other hand, the majority of scientists are right in their belief that space, time, and the universe suddenly sprang into existence through some ‘Big Bang’ cosmological explosion, its lack of self-sufficiency and its inability to account for itself is even more apparent! Either way, the evidence points in the same direction: the universe has an eternal self-existent Creator. If, then, God is real, what can the cosmological argument tell us about His attributes and character? A great deal. All we have to do, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1:19-20 , is look at His creation – at all that He has made. This tells us, first of all, that since the universe and all it contains is unimaginably vast and powerful in terms of its mass, extent, and energy, its Creator must be supremely powerful. Secondly, since the universe contains living, intelligent, and personal beings, and many other hallmarks of design, its Creator must be living, intelligent, and personal. Thirdly, since human beings possess moral awareness and feel guilty when they do wrong, their Creator must be Goodness personified, or ‘holy’, to use the language of the Bible. Finally, since the distance between non- existence and existence is an infinite one, a God who can create an entire universe out of nothing must be all-knowing and all-powerful . At the very least, God must be a Being to whose knowledge and power we can set no limits.[/b]

[b](8 ) The logical and scientific data pointing
to God’s existence is so overwhelming,
that an increasing number of scientists
are publicly acknowledging the
metaphysical implications of both the ‘Big
Bang’ and the ‘fine-tuning’ characteristics
of the universe. Here below is a sample of
their views, beginning with one great
name from the past:
Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921):
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced that
a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
universe – a spirit vastly superior to that
of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel
humble.”
Paul Davies (former professor of
theoretical physics at the University of
Adelaide): “Through my scientific work I
have come to believe more and more
strongly that the physical universe is put
together with an ingenuity so astonishing
that I cannot accept it merely as a brute
fact. I cannot believe that our existence in
this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an
accident of history, an incidental blip in
the great cosmic drama.”
Sir Fred Hoyle: “A commonsense
interpretation of the facts suggests that a
super-intellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in Nature.”
Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer,
dubbed the 'Grand Old Man of
Cosmology' by the New York Times, and a
former atheist): “It was my science that
drove me to the conclusion that the world
is much more complicated than can be
explained by science. It was only through
the supernatural that I could understand
the mystery of existence.”
Dr Arno Penzias(Nobel Prize-winning
astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine
the snapshot provided by half a century’s
worth of astrophysical data and see what
the pieces of the universe actually look
like…In order to achieve consistency with
our observations we must…assume not
only creation of matter and energy out of
nothing, but creation of space and time
as well. The best data we have are exactly
what I would have predicted had I
nothing to go on but the five books of
Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Professor Vera Kistiakowski (professor of
physics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and former president of the
Association of Women in Science): “The
exquisite order displayed by our scientific
understanding of the physical world calls
for the divine.”
Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a
Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life
biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to
the universe, as modern cosmologists now
agree, then this implies a cause that
transcends the universe. If the laws of
physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as
contemporary physicists are discovering,
then perhaps there’s a designer who fine-
tuned them. If there’s information in the
cell, as molecular biology shows, then this
suggests intelligent design. To get life
going in the first place would have
required biological information; the
implications point beyond the material
realm to a prior intelligent cause.”[/b]

Though too long, science believes every natural phenomenon has a natural cause.......

pet4ril:
Though too long, science believes every natural phenomenon has a natural cause.......

hi, i am also a scientist, bt am a strong Christian


some of us get it wrong

LORDDICE:

hi, i am also a scientist, bt am a strong Christian


some of us get it wrong

ok ooooo

pet4ril:
ok ooooo

I don't have time to present all d arguments sef

I believe your post was why does science refutes religion,not why does science refutes God...science can't refute God anymore than science can refute fairies and spaghetti monsters... On the other hand, all claims made by religions have been proven false by science, the world was not created in six days, living organisms ddnt just appear on earth...science has explanation for how we got here and it is backed up by evidence and facts,something religions don't have...

LORDDICE:

I don't have time to present all d arguments sef

Your post is too long,try summarizing ur points, but I would say that science still has room for a God,but its really really unlikely, you know why, the universe is for free, if you summed up the energy content in the universe,you get zero, that means your God wouldn't have done much at the big bang, then as for ur finely tuned universe, vast majority of space would kill you in an instant, even on earth, tsunami, earthquake, e.t.c...so much for intelligent design

donnffd:
I believe your post was why does science refutes religion,not why does science refutes God...science can't refute God anymore than science can refute fairies and spaghetti monsters... On the other hand, all claims made by religions have been proven false by science, the world was not created in six days, living organisms ddnt just appear on earth...science has explanation for how we got here and it is backed up by evidence and facts,something religions don't have...



Your post is too long,try summarizing ur points, but I would say that science still has room for a God,but its really really unlikely, you know why, the universe is for free, if you summed up the energy content in the universe,you get zero, that means your God wouldn't have done much at the big bang, then as for ur finely tuned universe, vast majority of space would kill you in an instant, even on earth, tsunami, earthquake, e.t.c...so much for intelligent design

and u must be 1 of those Darwinian scientists....
talking about life. have u taking time to read about d fossils? lemme just tell u in case u haven't read. the fossils hive no explanation for the intermediate life forms....... etc

LORDDICE:


and u must be 1 of those Darwinian scientists....
talking about life. have u taking time to read about d fossils? lemme just tell u in case u haven't read. the fossils hive no explanation for the intermediate life forms....... etc

99.9% of sciencists believe evolution as a fact, the evidence for it is so overwhelming, DNA,embryology, anatomy,to name a few...you are just in denial,but for d sake of argument, let's imagine it's wrong,is d bible correct?...the bible chronology suggests that the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years,I hope for your sake you don't believe that cos if you do,I really question your credibility as a scientist...the earth is 4.5 billion years n d universe is 13.8 billion years, there is tons of evidence supporting the claim...the bible doesn't even come close...so you see,eeven if evolution is wrong which it most certainly isn't, the bible isn't an alternative

donnffd:


99.9% of sciencists believe evolution as a fact, the evidence for it is so overwhelming, DNA,embryology, anatomy,to name a few...you are just in denial,but for d sake of argument, let's imagine it's wrong,is d bible correct?...the bible chronology suggests that the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years,I hope for your sake you don't believe that cos if you do,I really question your credibility as a scientist...the earth is 4.5 billion years n d universe is 13.8 billion years, there is tons of evidence supporting the claim...the bible doesn't even come close...so you see,eeven if evolution is wrong which it most certainly isn't, the bible isn't an alternative

Pls can someone prove that there are changes in kind and not just changes in form in evolution. I'm confused and willing to learn.

Toyolad:


Pls can someone prove that there are changes in kind and not just changes in form in evolution. I'm confused and willing to learn.

Are you referring to "kinds" as a classification scheme?

davien:
Are you referring to "kinds" as a classification scheme?

Kind as in from one class of animal to another. Evolutionism tells us that animals evolved and still do evolve from being one kind of animal to another kind just like the explanation given for the evolution of apes to man.. My confusion now is that, I've not seen any proof that backs up the claim that there is in fact change in KIND,admittedly there are changes in FORM of animals ranging from the development of adaptive features to change in physical and genetic make-up et al....I've not seen d proof of a fish that evolved in the past to become a reptilia animal and but I've seen d proof of a fish that developed adaptive features...get my d subject of my confusion.

Toyolad:
Kind as in from one class of animal to another. Evolutionism tells us that animals evolved and still do evolve from being one kind of animal to another kind just like the explanation given for the evolution of apes to man.. My confusion now is that, I've not seen any proof that backs up the claim that there is in fact change in KIND,admittedly there are changes in FORM of animals ranging from the development of adaptive features to change in physical and genetic make-up et al....I've not seen d proof of a fish that evolved in the past to become a reptilia animal and but I've seen d proof of a fish that developed adaptive features...get my d subject of my confusion.

Are you talking about evolution in science or the straw-man term called evolutionism invented by creationist?

I'll try to explain your shortcomings this way... humans are apes, apes are mammals, mammals are chordates, chordates have red blood cells, red blood cells are eukaryotic... so on and so forth..

The trend you see is that the ancestral organism and the following progeny would still fall under the same category,if enough changes accumulate or a bottleneck situation is encountered it can serve as a driving point for entirely new species...

These new species would still inherit critical remnants of their ancestors,an example is the plethora of ancient ape DNA we have and how the 2nd chromosomes in humans was a fusion site of two ape chromosomes..

davien:
Are you talking about evolution in science or the straw man term called evolutionist invented by creationists?

good thing you mentioned this, because there is a huge difference.

evolution will clearly show you how different lineages of species diverged from common ancestors. creationist attempts at "evolution" will tell you that evolution means bananas turning into fish

here is a good, simplified introductory video on actual evolution, and not the BS touted by ignorant creationists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

cloudgoddess:


good thing you mentioned this, because there is a huge difference.

evolution will clearly show you how different lineages of species diverged from common ancestors. creationist attempts at "evolution" will tell you that evolution means bananas turning into fish

here is a good, simplified introductory video on actual evolution, and not the BS touted by ignorant creationists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU

i thought d few well explained points I earlier stated will give some atheists a re think, bt dey wanna drag....
now let me dissect Darwinism

(9) Atheists commonly argue that Darwinian evolution provides an adequate explanation of the appearance of design in Nature, without needing to invoke God as its intelligent cause. The action of natural selection on random genetic mutations supposedly provides a designer-substitute mechanism by which unguided natural forces bring about complex biological change. As a result, it is not only possible that all living creatures evolved from the same simple ancestral organisms, but – Darwinists insist – evolution is a fact in that it has actually taken place, and only religious fundamentalists deny this. These claims do not stand up to critical examination for the following reasons: now, I will dissect Darwinism

(a) While no-one denies the reality of ‘micro-evolution’ (i.e. limited variation within species in response to environmental changes or selective breeding programmes), a growing number of scientists totally reject ‘macro-evolution’ – or, to put it in colloquial terms, large- scale ‘particles to people’ evolution. On October 1st 2001, for example, a hundred scientists published a two-page advertisement in the American magazine, The Weekly Standard, headed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”. In this statement they declared: “We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This list now includes over 800 anti-Darwinian scientists included biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, geologists, astrophysicists, and others, with doctorates from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Chicago, Berkeley, and other elite institutions. It also includes Nobel nominee, Henry F. Schaefer, a world-class chemist, and scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute. Nor is this list of scientific critics of Darwinism an exhaustive one. Over 1,000 scientists with post-graduate degrees have belonged to the Creation Research Society (USA) since its establishment in 1963, and by 1993, to take another example, the South Korean Association of Creation Research also had a membership of over 1,000 scientists, the majority with at least a Master’s degree or doctorate, and including 100 full-ranking university professors. There are many other openly- avowed creationist scientists in other parts of the world, particularly in Australia, as well as scientific critics of Darwinism who keep quiet about their dissident views for fear of blighting their professional careers. As American cosmologist, Allex Sandage put it in July 1998: “…there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe.”

(b) Darwinian evolution cannot even get off the ground as a non-theistic explanation of life because it cannot account for the existence of our ‘finely- tuned’ universe. It cannot answer the question addressed so convincingly by the cosmological argument for a Creator: why does anything exist at all if something cannot come from nothing?

(c) Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin and existence of the incredibly complex biological information systems required for the construction of even the simplest living cells. Its designer- substitute mechanism of natural selection and random mutations cannot therefore effect biological change on its own. Living organisms must first exist before they can ‘evolve’ in response to environmental change! To quote Fred Hoyle: “Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik Cube. The chances against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body’s 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly by chance.” (from his book, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983). Equally devastating is the admission of the Nobel Prize-winning atheist scientist, Francis Crick, one of the joint discoverers of DNA: “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going.” ( Life Itself, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p.88).

(d) Much of the evidence supposedly supporting Darwinian evolution has either been challenged by the progress of science or else involves question-begging assumptions resulting from a prior philosophical bias in favour of atheism or agnosticism. Take, for example, the argument that homology (i.e. similarities of body structure or biochemistry between different species) proves evolutionary descent from a common ancestor. Could this not instead be evidence of common design by a common Creator? Different types of car also share similar features in terms of wheels and engines whilst still remaining the common product of human intelligence. Advances in microbiology, moreover, call into question the notion that genetic similarities between different species implies common ancestry. As molecular biologist and former atheist, Dr Jonathan Wells, points out, similar genes within different species often lead to different bodily features, while different genes sometimes lead to similar features, thus turning the supposed homological ‘proof’ of macro-evolution on its head. To quote his words: “We know some cases where you have similar features that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of cases where we have similar genes that give rise to very different features. I’ll give you an example: eyes. There’s a gene that’s similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there’s a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What’s more striking is if you look at a fruit fly’s eye – a compound eye with multiple facets – it’s totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.”

(e) In his book, Icons of Evolution, molecular biologist, Dr Jonathan Wells, exposes the weakness of some of the chief arguments and ‘evidence’ habitually trotted out in support of Darwinism in the standard biology textbooks used in colleges and universities. So too does Australian microbiologist, Dr Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist whose detailed, ground-breaking critique of Darwinism, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, has opened up the scientific debate about origins since its publication in 1986. What these, and other authors, reveal in particular, is the embarrassing fact that paleontology (the study of the fossil record) does not support evolutionary theory, let alone the Darwinian claim that macro-evolution has occurred and is therefore a ‘fact’. The first problem Darwinian evolution faces is the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record, a fact which Darwin himself conceded was the gravest and most obvious objection to his theory. As he wrote in The Origin of Species (1859): “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?” The answer, he believed, lay in the incompleteness of the fossil record, a defect he assumed would be rectified by future discoveries. This has proved to be a false hope. Despite the accumulation of at least a quarter of a million fossil species over the past 150 years, the evolutionary ‘gaps’ have not been filled, as many Darwinian scientists themselves acknowledge. To quote Stephen Gould, professor of paleontology, biology, and geology at Harvard: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Natural History, Vol.86, 1977 ). In a similar fashion, Steve Jones, professor of genetics at London University, and like Gould, an evolutionist and atheist, admits: “The evidence for human evolution is, in fact, still extraordinarily weak…There are no more fossils than would cover a decent-sized table and we know almost nothing about what propelled a hairy and rather stupid ape into a bald and mildly intellectual human being.” ( Daily Telegraph, 13/9/95 ). But in any case, even if there were an abundance of apparent ‘transitional’ fossils, why should this be conclusive evidence for macro-evolution? Could not an intelligent Creator have directly created unrelated creatures with certain shared or overlapping characteristics? After all, points out Dr Jonathan Wells, “… we see strange animals around today, like the duck-billed platypus, which nobody considers transitional but which has characteristics of different classes.” The second embarrassing paleontological problem confronting Darwinian theory is what biologists call the ‘Cambrian explosion’ – the sudden and inexplicable appearance early in geological history of fossil remains of most of the major types of animal life alive today as well as various kinds that are now extinct. How can this biological ‘Big Bang’ be reconciled with the idea of macro-evolution? To quote geophysicist and origin-of-life biologist, Dr Stephen Meyer: “The Cambrian explosion represents an incredible quantum leap in biological complexity. Before then, life on Earth was pretty simple – one-celled bacteria, blue- green algae, and later some sponges and primitive worms or mollusks. Then without any ancestors in the fossil record, we have a stunning variety of complex creatures appear in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking…All of this totally contradicts Darwinism, which predicted the slow, gradual development in organisms over time…The big issue is where did the information come from to build all these new proteins, cells, and body plans?”

(f) Another powerful objection to Darwinian theory is its inability to offer a convincing solution to the problem of ‘irreducible complexity’ – i.e. the existence of biological organisms and systems comprised of multiple, co- ordinated parts, all of which must co-exist to ensure the proper functioning of that organism or system. As Darwin himself admitted in The Origin of Species: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Precisely such a demonstration has been made by American biochemist, Dr Michael Behe, in his award-winning best-seller, Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. In this book, he argues that many biochemical structures within living organisms are ‘irreducibly complex’, like, for example, those involved in vision and blood-clotting. Behe shows that even the simplest form of vision requires a dazzling array of chemicals in the right places, as well as a system to transmit and process the information. The blood-clotting mechanism similarly needs many different chemicals to work together in order to prevent us bleeding to death from minor cuts. If a simple mousetrap cannot function if any of its component parts are missing, how could an evolutionary process produce infinitely more complex single-cell organisms? As one Darwinian scientist, Franklin M. Harold, has pointed out in his book, The Way of the Cell, (Oxford University Press, 2001, p.205), a single-cell organism is a biological high- tech factory complete with: “artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction…[and] a capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.” Not surprisingly, he reluctantly concludes: “…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (p.329).

(g) Even if we ignore the many difficulties facing Darwinian theory and the lack of convincing evidence for macro-evolution, one compelling reason exists for dismissing it completely: the accidental emergence of complex life-forms does not become more probable by being divided up into many little steps. Since the evolutionary process is ‘blind’ because it has no conscious purpose or ‘target’ at which it is aiming, there is no reason why all the little steps required for the development of the human eye, for instance, should occur at the right time and in the right order. To quote one agnostic scientific critic of Darwinism, Richard Milton, writing in his book, The Facts of Life (Corgi Books, 1992, p.180): “The improbability of step number 2 correctly following step number 1, correctly followed by step number 3 and so on for 100 mutations, is as great as leaping to the 100th step in one go…It does not become any easier for an eye to come into being just because the first of the 100 or 1,000 accidents needed has taken place, even if that first step is a very important general innovation such as light-sensitive tissue.” The next random mutation may be a wrong step, “such as providing eyelids before providing the muscles to move them, thus blinding their possessor.” Even if favourable mutations did accumulate within one species, their survival value could be counterbalanced by favourable mutations within some hostile predator, or else nullified by some harmful change in climate or physical environment. Since, in addition, most mutations are harmful, why should it be likely that enough favourable mutations would accumulate by accident to produce a progressive upward trend in organic evolution?

(h) The final reason for dismissing Darwinian evolution on both scientific and philosophical grounds is that its advocates simply miss the main point in the debate between atheists and theists. They are not only confronted by the extreme improbability that life in all its complexity ‘evolved’ by random and purposeless naturalistic processes; they face an even greater challenge: to explain why it is more probable that life in all its forms emerged on our planet by accident, rather than as the deliberately designed product of an intelligent Creator. Once the issue is seen in this light, the absurdity of denying God’s existence becomes fully apparent. To quote one great British scientist from the past, Lord Kelvin, who made important discoveries in thermodynamics and died in 1907: “Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute , No.124, p.267).

I am a scientist. but most importantly, I'm a Christian. more facts can be presented if any Darwinian has a raised eyebrow

LORDDICE:
I am a scientist.
but most importantly, I'm a Christian.
more facts can be presented if any Darwinian has a raised eyebrow

I have said it before and will say it again, your posts are too long and needs to be summarized, i cant read all that, have meaningful things to do,but i did stumble upon where you said evolution doesnt explain fine-tuned universe bla bla bla...Are you sure you are a scientist, Evolution is the study of the diversity of life on earth, it makes no claim to how life started or the universe for that matter, those are completely different fields...Now fine, you have destroyed evolution, whats your alternative? Animals just appeared on the earth? 6000 years ago?,is that it? and let me ask you this, do you believe that dinosaurs existed

donnffd:


I have said it before and will say it again, your posts are too long and needs to be summarized, i cant read all that, have meaningful things to do,but i did stumble upon where you said evolution doesnt explain fine-tuned universe bla bla bla...Are you sure you are a scientist, Evolution is the study of the diversity of life on earth, it makes no claim to how life started or the universe for that matter, those are completely different fields...Now fine, you have destroyed evolution, whats your alternative? Animals just appeared on the earth? 6000 years ago?,is that it? and let me ask you this, do you believe that dinosaurs existed

NO.
talking about Darwinism, does it also give room for dinosaurs

LORDDICE:


NO.
talking about Darwinism, does it also give room for dinosaurs

Lol, so you think scientists are in a form of cult and carrying out a conspiracy against us, they forged the bones of dinosaurs and old creatures of the past?......dude you are deluded, can't argue with ignorance, I can't believe someone who calls himself a scientist doesn't believe dinosaurs once existed!!! Hilarious

the letter killeth....

donnffd:


I have said it before and will say it again, your posts are too long and needs to be summarized,

LordDice, your posts are too long. I'm not a darwinist but I can't read your posts in spite of how interested I am in your arguments. If you cannot make your point in one sentence then try to do it within two sentences. Or patapata if you must be longwinded, then try to be entertaining with it.