Demystifying atheistic evolutionism
Autor: Anderson Rodrigues | Publicado: 2016-12-25T23:19:00-08:00






The
discussion about creationism and&nbsp;evolutionism&nbsp;is not old, but has
become&nbsp;extremely&nbsp;controversial. The philosophical perspective of a
Creator or other ways of creation were always considered to be the most logical
explanation about human existence by all different&nbsp;ethnics. Interestingly,
some will point to the fact that the whole Science community brought about the
theory of evolution. As far as I am concern, Charles Darwin did not have the
approval of every single scientist, differently of any discovering on
scientific laws, given the fact that the second can be easily proven through
researches in laboratories. However, the naturalist and geologist was able to
convince most of scientists (at that time) that the theory of evolution (the
famous book the origin of species) was something possible through natural and
sexual selection. Evidently, most scientists and physicists today disagree much
more than the previous one on this theory. Nevertheless, do not think many of
them turned to creationism. Some have recently chosen to believe in some new
modern theories, as is the case of the “spaceship” from which sperms were
launched into the world. I wonder why they still challenge the faith of a
Theist by affirming such thing.





Anyway,
inasmuch as this discussion will not come to an end for the main reason I will
mention at the end of this article, we don’t need to invest our whole life
discussing it. It is expected to take some 20 minutes to read all I planned to
have here. Please, take this time as precious, especially if you have serious
concerns about this subject. Read carefully because may differ of almost
everything you learnt or have heard so far.&nbsp;






The
first think I want to make known as plainer as possible is that Science has not
disprove the existence of God. I am shocked of how many students are affirming
this as a true statement.



Let
me organize the thoughts here. Firstly, I will briefly describe some&nbsp;inconsistencies&nbsp;in
the theory itself, followed by some important comments of great names in the
Scientific society today. Then I will quote some of the greatest names of
Physics and Science on the subject of creation and God, and finally give the
main reason why this discussion will never end, which is indeed the core of the
matter.



I
would like to make very clear that Science is of all importance for humans.
Science, the term itself, it’s by no means dispensable. We need it, and we are
using it in greater or minor proportion every single day. The search for answers
imply science. I am not ignorant or unaware of that. Having said this, it is
more than fair that findings of science can be applied to explain theories of
various matters, including the theory of evolution. I have to say that Science
is ultimately not enough to explain the reason by which this discussion never
end, what I will bring up in the final statements of this article.



It is
more than known that the theory of evolution goes against the laws of science.
What is not known is why this is never said in our Universities.



First
of all, I also remind you that the Big Bang theory is something unproven. It is
not observable; has always been only a speculation. The theory of gravity for
example, we can conclude using inductions, deductions in consonance with true
assumptions, laws and principles. It is not the case of the Big Bang.



Just
to remind you again, the evolutionism, one of the most common theories of
science, says that the world was created by an atomic explosion, making organic
life appear from inorganic material. Only this very first concept is
contradictory. It is against the biogenesis theory. Herein lies the first
problem. By the way, a good scientist will easily noticed that the new
discovering on biology and physics (metaphysic and quantum physic) have created
an even bigger distance between the theory of evolution and the reality of this
universe in which we live.



Let
me just correct something here. One of the biggest problems of our World is
that the questions concerning existence were thrown on the hand of
“specialists”. Not only a scientist, but every human being, who is by all means
able to exercise judgment and reasonable think, can understand how far the
theory became from reality with the advances of science. Not to mention, of
course, the consistent view on the other side, which has become even stronger
with historical, geographical and archeological advances. Furthermore, the
intuitive response is also nearer to everyone who is honest with himself.



Having
said this, let me give just three important facts before mentioning the reasons
why this theory was by far overcome and the reason why people will, in spite of
the facts, never accept this.

I want
to briefly explain three simple principles and laws of Science, accepted by all
physician, scientist and any other professional that uses science on the face
of this earth, which show us how the evolutionism theory is wrong at its core.



The
first one, and I know some people will erroneously deny it, is the first
thermodynamic law. This law, which is not a theory nor a principle, proved by
all scientific technics, says that it is impossible to create and destroy
energy. The basic foundation is that energy in the universe never changes. Yet,
the evolutionists say that the universe is in constant expansion, in evolution
itself. &nbsp;This is wrong based on this scientific law. Some may try to
explain by this or that way, but the fact is, it is not observable and it goes
against one of the most important principles of physic.



Notwithstanding,
the second thermodynamic law says that the universe walks from organized levels
to disorganized levels. If I throw an egg to the ground, I can see the
organized structure becoming disorganized. How could this same egg come back
again and become an organized structure? &nbsp;According to the evolutionists,
this is possible. They affirm the universe started disorganized and it is
becoming organized with the time. This was never observed and honestly does not
make any sense, since the world have been changing from good to worse day after
day.



Just
to point out something important here, Creationism is the only view which does
not deny any scientific law. For instance, not differently from the first
thermodynamic law, this second one is also related with the revelation
described in the Bible. God created the world with only one energy, which never
changes. The world, firstly organized and perfect, became, and is becoming more
and more disorganized, as a result of sin (trespass, disequilibrium,
intervention in the natural process by evil actions towards creation).



The
last contradiction I would like to mention is the well-known law of cause and
effect. It is just impossible to have an effect bigger, quantitatively and
qualitatively, than the cause. Therefore, the cause will always be bigger than
the effect. Although the science recognizes this law as truth, the
evolutionists believe that the inanimate material was the first cause of the
universe, instead of the life (effect), created by them. Which means, we,
people, full of dreams, desires, emotion, will, intelligence, complexity over
complexity, are the effect of the cause, inanimate material that was
mysteriously flying around before an explosion, of which no scientist can
explain who lit the match.



According
to the science, therefore, to have an effect bigger than the cause is
impossible! Given the fact the complexity of human being, only someone greater
than he could be the cause for the existence. The first cause, therefore, shall
be logically non-physical.







With
regard of complexity, recently science found the approximate number of cells in
a human body. Just 37.2 trillion. This means that if you lined up all the cells
of an average human, end to end, the line could circle the earth almost 19
times. That is just amazing. One single human being, with so many random
information caused by an explosion…. Wow, one needs to have a bit of faith
here.



Another
example, just one single enzyme (the building block of gem, which is the
building block of a cell) in our body. According to a professor that
unfortunately I cannot remember the name, a professor of applied mathematics at
Cardiff University of Wales, the possibility of a human enzyme, coming together
by random, by chance, is just 1.10 to the power of 40 thousand. Many people
have never studied numbers of this size. It is, by the way, more than the
number of all atoms in this universe! Therefore, mathematically speaking, the
possibility is zero! There is no way to have such complexity by a random event.



Look
to the information contained within the DNA. One strain of DNA has 6 hundred
thousand pages of information. I like the analogy Dr. Ravi Zacharias commonly
makes in his lectures. It is the same of mentioning that a large phone book
came all organized from a printer explosion! It is just senseless.

Undeniably,
there are many holes to this theory. We need to remember that science is not
based on theory. Science by its own rules must be observed. There is, however,
no observational evidence to this attempted theory. Scientists themselves will
admit that there are many holes.



Dr.
John Polkinghorne, for instance. He is a leading quantum physicists in the
world. After many 

years as atheist he converted and
became a theologian, writer and Anglican priest. A prominent and leading voice
explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of
Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge. He served as the president
of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996. He said in a lecturing on
the first 3 seconds on the existence of the universe “the ratio between the
expansion and contraction had to be so exact that it would be literally like
taking aim on a 1 square inch target, 20 billion light years away and hitting
it bullseye“. He goes on to say “ladies and gentlemen, there is no free lunch!
Somebody has to pay! You don’t get a universe so densely textured and so
infinitely rich by accident”.









Robert
Jastrow, who was an American astronomer and planetary physicist, a leading NASA
scientist, said after his discovering on universe expansion, which went on the
opposite direction of scientific intention to prove the inexistence of
Creation. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of
reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of
ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over
the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting
there for centuries."



I
truly believe that an honest scientist, who is looking for coherent answers,
will always come to the conclusion that the ubiquitous teachings in
Universities and the propagation of theories through all kinds of media can be
easily challenged by serious and impartial studies on science itself.



The
affirmation that Science has proven everything is absolutely wrong. David
Berlinsk, considered the world leader physicist, an American agnostic
philosopher, professor and author, the Senior Fellow from Center for Science
and Culture of Discovery Institute, the center of design intelligent movement,
says the following extremely important commentary. Please, bear in mind that he
is an agnostic.






-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has
anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has
quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

-&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be
fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

-&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything
so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

-&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding
of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has
secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even
close to being close.

-&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and
opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Does
anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that
religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Is
scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.



David
also make important affirmations on the fossil records of the theory of
evolution. For him,&nbsp;it does not make any sense.&nbsp;It does not
sustain prediction that can be intelligently derive. With regard of the
theory, as we all know, he says&nbsp;it was never able to be seen. He
mentions about the generic algorism, that&nbsp;even a tremendous amount of
very special manipulation in a computer would never generate anything realistic
in biology. He concludes.&nbsp;There’s no laboratory evidence. Not even
one. The only ones who confirm this is the scientists themselves. This is
known and not new.



Although
some are affirming that 99% of scientists are atheists and truly believe in
Evolutionism, it’s known of thousands of scientists, as well as historians and
archeologists who have a robust and well-respected Christian faith.



But
as clear as crystal is, science, generally speaking, has its problems with
religious faith. For instance, it affirms that miracles are not possible, which
should be indeed said, and some does say, that it is not probable to exist, for
a miracle was never scientific disproved. However, the problem I see on this is
that, when we look to the very nature, which modern biased science says came
from an explosion, we have to question ourselves the following. What are the
random chances to happen? More specifically, if we look to a child coming to
this world, just for the sake of illustration. What are the random chances for
a child to be born from a woman’s womb, over and over and over and over again?
I would say it’s either a divine perfect programming or an evident miracle! But
if miracle is only possible by divine intervention, the question can be just
one.





In
addition to what I have already mention, it is good to highlight another
important aspect here.

Observably
and intuitively, intelligibility always assumes a prior mind. In any other
case, in any other question that may be raised, always when something
intelligible is observed, this will be explained taking into consideration that
someone was behind it. Only to explain the Universe this is despise it.



Now,
before coming to the heart of the matter, about why do people still believe on
a failed surpassed theory, let me quote some great names of Science here.

&nbsp;&nbsp;



“I
have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who
were inspired.&nbsp; I study the Bible daily.” Who said this quote?&nbsp;Many
“modern” people or scientist would say, “An idiot who believed in God and
was therefore completely irrelevant to the history”. However, let’s see
what this man did in his lifetime:



Co-inventor
of the calculus, discoverer of the law of universal gravitation and the three
laws of motion, analyzer of white light split into colors by means of a prism,
inventor of the reflecting telescope and author of the most important book of
the scientific revolution (the Principia Mathematica).




Wow!
It does not seen to be an idiot at all.





By
discovering all these important laws of nature, as gravitation, optics, laws of
motion, how did he boast about?&nbsp;“All my discoveries have been made in an
answer to prayer.”&nbsp;Yes, mankind like to complicate things. What we can see
is that, if something is not complex, it is not true. However, this person said
wisely:&nbsp;“Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the
multiplicity and confusion of things”.



This
man, Sir. Isaac Newton, wrote more about theology than any other thing, and
still found time to discovered these "small" things, used in all
science nowadays. Unfortunately, the biased view is that Science is only
related to atheist views and atheist people.



“Because
I believe in the One who made the world”. &nbsp;This book was written by
Antonino Zichichi, who was President of European Physical Society, President of
Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, President of Commission OTAN of
Technologies for Disarmament, President of World Federation of Scientists
&nbsp;and so son.



He
said:&nbsp;If it weren't for science, we wouldn't have a valid argument to say
that we are children of a rigorous logic.&nbsp; Atheistic culture maintains
that we are children of chaos, but this is unscientific. What does the term
'science' mean?&nbsp; Discovering the logic of nature. If there is a logic
supporting the world from its smallest structures to the boundaries of the
cosmos, then there also has to be its author. Atheistic culture maintains that
there is no author, but that is not reasonable.&nbsp;Science and faith are in
great alliance because science does not arise from an act of reason but from an
act of faith in the One who made the world.&nbsp;&nbsp;Galileo wrote that&nbsp;he
sought the logic of the author of the world in stones and not in the stars
because one couldn't do experiments with the stars.&nbsp; With stones, one
could do such experiments.





In
1929 Einstein was personally check the telescope of Edwin Hubble (who gave name
to the famous Hubble telescope) and found that the theory of relativity had
been confirmed. Thus he describes:&nbsp;"I'm not interested in this or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know God's
thoughts; the rest are details. "





The
“father” of the experimental science, Galileo Galilei, said:&nbsp;“The human
science in any way deny the existence of God. When I consider how many and how
great things the man understands, research and can perform, then clearly
recognize that the human spirit is God's work, and the most notable.”
“Mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the Universe.”





James Tour, who won the
ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012, ranked
as one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson
Reuters in 2009 said:&nbsp;“Only a beginner who knows nothing about science
would say that science dismisses the faith. If you really study the science it
certainly will bring you closer to God.”



Intuitively,
there is no way to say “God does not exist”,&nbsp;unless you are interest in
that.



If
God exist, there is certain rules. If not, I can be and do whatever I want with
no problem in my&nbsp;conscience. And herein lies the problem.



Human
experience and history itself points to moral and social issues, which demands
explanation of a moral reality. By accepting the theory of “random”, one have
to accept no morality exist. This is simply hard to affirm, and for this very
reason is still the biggest hurdle never overcame by atheistics world views.



Random
life does not explain anything about morality, but morality is undeniably
present in our lives.



Therefore,
it is clearly not a question of evidence, reason or logic. It is a question of
preference. People are not willing to accept the idea of God because they are
not comfortable with the idea of having someone greater than them, who demands
a moral comportment that may significantly differ from theirs. Consequently, if
one is an atheist, he is not for intellectual reasons, but for moral ones.

Let
me put some questions here. How do science define love? How do science define
morality? There is simple no answers. Moreover, if there is no morality, what
scientific imperative told you that you must be honest on your findings? Some
can just make up everything and present as the truth. We have, therefore, these
three evident aspects of our lives. Meaning, purpose and love. You can be
confident that Science will never answer them, for have no capacity of doing
so.



Look
what Aldous Huxley, the English writer, novelist and atheist philosopher said.
"Science does not have the right to give to me my reason for being. But I
am going to take science’s view because I want this world not to have meaning.
A meaningless world frees me to pursue my own erotic and political desires.” It
becomes clear the philosophical background of people who, like Huxley, denies
the existence of God.



Many
people are willing to found senseless as something true at any cost, spreading
whatever theory or even something not even close to a theory all around the
world, in an attempt to appease their own conscience. By doing this, they can
have a justification for their moral comportment without feeling guilt.

I let
here some questions someone else made for the scientists to answer.

How can nothing make everything?
How can random chaos make an
     orderly universe?
How can no ‘designer’ create
     something that was designed?
How can impersonal matter create
     personal humanity?
How can the unintelligent make
     the intelligent?
How can a transition of species
     happen over a long period of time but no fossil record exist that such a
     transition actually happened?
How come we’ve been unable to
     replicate evolution despite trying desperately to do so?
How can some people say the earth
     is eternal when even evolutionary theorists hold to Big Bang - cosmology
     which assumes there was a beginning?
Why should anyone try to make a
     meaningful life for themselves if the secularists are right and all of
     life is full of hopelessness and despair?


In spite
of everything, I honestly thank God for the true knowledge and wisdom, who
“hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little
children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.” Matthew 11:25.