A common perception, perpetuated by modern atheists, is that science has not only discredited religion, but exposed it as complete nonsense. They conveniently ignore the fact that modern-day science originated with men like Isaac Newton who believed that the God of order planned the universe to work the way it does. That belief was a driving influence behind their research and without it the modern scientific age would not have come about.

Committed to Atheism⤒🔗

In reality, today’s atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, believe what they do, not because of true scientific investigation, but because of their prior religious commitment to atheism, scientific materialism (the belief that there is no supernatural realm) and evolution. Indeed, some of their theories are illogical. For instance, Hawking recently asserted that ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’. Yet as Sarfati has pointed out ‘self-creation’ is self-contradictory. Something can do something — including create — only if it exists; something not yet existing has no power to do anything, including create itself’. Indeed, scientific laws of themselves can do nothing. They merely describe things. As Prof John Lennox puts it, ‘The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up’. Only an agent (God), not the law of physics, could have built the universe and to assert otherwise is nonsense.

Evolution is Unscientific←⤒🔗

Whilst atheists are quick to say that belief in God is ‘not scientific’, they fail to recognise that their own evolutionary views of origins are unscientific. The science that helped develop cars and medicines works through observations and repeatable experiments which lead to the formulation of general laws and theories which are viewed as objective knowledge but could theoretically be proved false if experimental evidence demonstrated otherwise. Without an explanation being testable, it is not viewed as scientific. As the study of origins deals with unobservable and unrepeatable past events which cannot be subjected to testing it follows that the study of evolution (and historical geology) is not truly scientific. It produces stories to fit the observations which may or may not be true. It will not do to presuppose that what we see today explains the past — that is a philosophical and unprovable presupposition. Yet, observations have a place when studying origins. They can be used to assess whether the historical inferences made by creationists and evolutionists are reasonable. When this is done Creation is seen to be a much more reliable explanation of origins.

Where did Life come from?←⤒🔗

A basic problem for evolution is that it cannot account for the first appearance of life. Living cells are not just collections of chemicals but complex information-processing machines. The components of a simple cell are themselves complex and could not come into existence individually but must be present together in order for them to be made or the cell to work. It is little surprise that biochemists are at a loss to understand how DNA, RNA and genetic information could have originated. Attempts to synthesize the building blocks of RNA in laboratories prove nothing. Not only is this a long way from producing RNA itself, but the conditions of production are very different from the ‘primordial soup’ in which life allegedly arose. The chemistry is such that it could not spontaneously form itself and any parts produced would readily break down, not provide the basis for life. Only blind faith can justify belief in chemical evolution, without which, evolution could not have occurred. The evidence points incontrovertibly to the Creator!

‘Vestigial Organs’?←⤒🔗

So called ‘vestigial organs’ have often been cited as proof of evolution. However, as medicine advances alleged vestigial organs such as the appendix have been shown to be anything but redundant evolutionary leftovers. Recent research indicates that the appendix acts ‘as a “safehouse” for helpful bacteria, so they can repopulate the intestines after dysentery’. That an organ’s function is currently unknown does not make it vestigial and only evolutionary bias will suggest otherwise.

‘Bad Design’?←⤒🔗

Many evolutionists acknowledge the appearance of design in organisms and therefore point to examples of alleged ‘bad design’ to counter this clear evidence for Creation. However, such arguments are specious and subjective. Failure to fully understand why something is designed the way it is does not mean the design is necessarily bad. More importantly, the fact of design is not disproved by questioning its quality. Contrary to Dawkins’ claims, the wiring of the retina is actually good design. His alleged ‘better design’ would produce an eye which was as useless as an eye with a haemorrhage and which would take months to recover when exposed to bright light! Similarly the long, roundabout route the left recurrent laryngeal nerve takes from the brain to the larynx via the chest is not, as Dawkins claims, poor design which is better explained as the leftover of fish ancestry: not only does this nerve serve other functions apart from larynx control, but it can be shown that its length is due to design constraints during foetal development. It displays both good and intelligent design and should lead us to marvel at the ingenuity of the Creator.

Fossils←⤒🔗

Increasingly, allegedly ancient fossils are being discovered that are almost identical to living organisms. Whether it be the presumed-extinct fish, Coelacanth (allegedly 380 to 80 million years) discovered alive and almost identical in 1938 or the latest ancient fossil shrimp (allegedly 360 million years), the lack of any changes discredits evolution and points to the reality of creation. Similarly, despite millions of fossil discoveries and the claims of evolutionists, no reasonable missing links have been found between major animal groups. Those posited to be such e.g. Tiktaalik, the alleged ancestor of reptiles, have been shown to be nothing of the sort. The evidence from fossils, whose very preservation must be due to rapid burial, favours the Biblical account of creation and flood, not evolution.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

It is little wonder that someone has called evolution the greatest hoax on earth. The observed evidence supports creation, not evolution. Do not be deceived by vociferous voices which decry creation and make spurious pseudo-scientific claims on religious and philosophical grounds because they hate the idea of being creatures accountable to a lawgiver and judge. The only way to understand who you are, why you are here and where you are going, is to come to know your Creator who speaks to you in the Bible.