THE ATHEIST REJECTION OF
REASON AND SCIENCE
A Look at the Facts by
Gary Ray Branscome
Like many Christians, I went through a
struggle of faith during my teenage years. Although I grew up in a Christian
home, my worldview had been shaped by the public school system, and the bogus
history of the world that it presents as fact. I am not talking about objective
history, the kind of history based on written records, but the imaginary
history fabricated by men who reject the Bible. At that time I was intimidated
by their assertive presentation, and the claim that they were following reason
and science. But, as I later learned, nothing could be further from the truth.
They not only were not following reason or science, but, as I will show, were
rejecting reason and science whenever it did not fit their agenda.
The Rejection of Reason
At present, one of the most prominent
advocates of evolution is atheist professor Richard Dawkins. He claims to have
the facts, but when you look at the evidence it becomes evident that he has
nothing more than hot air to back up his beliefs. I am not saying that he will
not cite facts, but that none of those facts support the conclusions he wants
to get from them. In short he just puts his own spin on things, and pretends
that there is no other credible explanation.
For example: On the first page of his
book, “The Blind watchmaker” (second paragraph) he says. “Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose.” Yet his book was written to deny that obvious
fact.
Furthermore, he is not alone in that
view. Another prominent atheist, Francis Crick, has said, “Biologists must
constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather
evolved." (“What Mad Pursuit”,
page 138.)
My
question for both of them and for you is this. “If a dog, a horse, or any other
animal looked at those ‘complicated things,’ would it conclude that they had
been ‘designed for a purpose’? OF COURSE NOT! And, the reason that a dog, a
horse, or any animal would not come to that conclusion is because it is our
REASON [human reason] that tells us that those “complicated things… give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.
Once that is understood, it
should be obvious that, Richard, Dawkins’ book “The Blind watchmaker”
was written to deny what his own reason tells him is self-evident. And, the very purpose of his book is to convince
his readers that they should not believe their own reason.
In short, if living things appear to have been designed
because they have been designed, then a dogmatic refusal to believe that they
have been designed is a rejection of reason.
Things that Appear to Have Been Designed
When
Richard Dawkins speaks of things that appear to have been designed, he is not
just speaking of complete plants or animals, but of all the complicated systems
within every plant, every animal, and every cell that carry out specific
functions — systems such as our endocrine system, our circulatory system, our
digestive system, our eyes, our ears, and our kidneys to name a few. Reason
tells us that those systems could not evolve in small steps, because they would
have no survival value until the entire system was functioning.
For example: What good would
a mouth be without an intestine? What good would an intestine be without a
stomach? What good would a stomach be without the glandular-factories that
produce digestive juices? What good would all of that be without rapid
replacement of the cells lining the stomach, coupled with glandular-factories
that coat the stomach with a protective layer of mucous? And, what good would
all of that be if the intestine could not absorb the nutrients into the blood
steam? Or if the intestine was not lined with smooth muscle programmed to move
the digested food through the intestine? Atheists try to get around this fact
by claiming that simple digestive systems evolved into more complex systems.
However, they cannot show us one such simple system, because every digestive
system (no matter how simple they think it is) must be complete and functional
before it can give an organism added survival value.
In his book, “
Made Up “Just-So” Stories
I recently watched a youtube video in which Richard Dawkins attempted to
convince his audience that an eye could evolve. He began by suggesting that a
mutation may have caused an organism to have a clear spot in its outer membrane
enabling it to sense light, thus improving its ability to survive. Claiming
that a later mutation may then have enabled it to sense shadowy shapes, further
improving its ability to survive, followed by other mutations each one
improving its sight, and thus its ability to survive. Dr. Phillip E. Johnson
has likened these stories fabricated by Dawkins to the “just so” stories that
Rudyard Kipling came up with; stories such as “How the Tiger Got Its Stripes,”
or “How the Elephant got Its Trunk”. In contrast to such imaginary stories,
there is not one scrap of real scientific evidence that mutations (which are
damage to the genes) have ever produced, or could ever produce sight.
Why, reason itself tells us that such
a scenario is absurd! First of all, a patch of clear cells would not
automatically enable us to sense light. If you doubt what I say go into your
bathroom some night, turn off the light, and point a flashlight into your
mouth. Your face will light up like a Chinese lantern because light already
penetrates our skin. Yet even though it penetrates our skin we do not sense
that light because our skin has no mechanism for conveying that information to
the brain. Secondly, even if a mutation could cause some cells to become clear,
random chance would cause those clear cells to be scattered around the body
like salt on a pork chop. The very fact those cells are arranged into a lens
tells us that lens was designed for a purpose.
Furthermore, not only do we need a
lens, there must also be a photosensitive retina for the lens to focus an image
on, a code and mechanism by which the retina can convey that information to the
brain, and ability on the part of the brain to accurately decode that information,
reproducing a reliable image in the mind.
And, what does science say about all
of this? The fossil-bearing layer commonly regarded as oldest is the Cambrian
layer. That layer not only contains a great variety of complex life forms, but
all the basic eye designs are found there, including the camera type eye common
to all vertebrates. Furthermore, from their first appearance in the fossil
record those eyes are complete and functional. There is not one scrap of
evidence that those eyes ever evolved from something less complex. Dawkins
seems to believe that if he can imagine something evolving, then it is
reasonable to believe that it did evolve, even if his imaginary scenario is
contrary to both reason and science.
The Laws of Science
In his book, “The three Pillars of Evolution
Demolished”, Dr. Jerry Bergman points out that as a theory, Evolution rests on
three pillars. And, like the three legs of a three legged stool, if any one of
those pillars fails the entire theory falls. Those three pillars are, 1)- Origin of life without supernatural intervention; 2)-
Random mutations as the source of variation; 3)- Natural selection as the
mechanism on how life evolves.
Regarding the first of those pillars, at one time it was widely believed that
maggots spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that
"hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660)
devised an experiment, consisting of jars that contained meat. Some were open,
some closed, and some had cloth across the top. While maggots only appeared in
open jars, flies were actually observed laying maggots on the cloth, thus
proving that the maggots were not generated spontaneously.
However, instead of
completely rejecting the idea of spontaneous generation, a number of
“scientists” continued to believe that bacteria would spontaneously generate in
broth. In order to test that hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859) devised an
experiment utilizing several long-necked flasks that contained beef broth.
After the broth was boiled, the necks on some of the flasks were heated and
bent in an s-curve. As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that was in
straight-necked flasks. When it entered the flasks with curved necks, it wound
up sticking to the side of the neck, and never reached the broth. As a result,
by the end of the nineteenth century, such experiments, coupled with the
invention of a dust-free box, had convinced the scientific community that life
does not come from non-life. In fact the evidence that life comes only from
preexisting life is so solid that it is regarded as a law of science, “The
Law of Biogenesis”. Evolutionists
simply ignore the scientific evidence because it does not fit their ideas. In
fact, every time some speaker or author equates the possibility of liquid water
on other planets with the presence of life on those planets, they are ignoring
the evidence.
Because Richard Dawkins
knows that life only comes from preexisting life, when he was interviewed for
the movie, “Expelled,” he suggested that life may have been seeded onto Earth
by travelers from outer space. In other words, he prefers science fiction to
real science. The same holds true for Bill Ney, who,
in his debate with Ken Ham, equated the presence of water with the presence of
life.
When it comes to the second
of those pillars,
As to the third pillar of
evolution: “Natural Selection” cannot produce anything because it can only
select from what is already there. In short, the fittest must be there to begin
with before it can be selected. And, “No mindless, random chance process is
ever going to produce DNA with information in it,” (Dr. Jobe
Martin, from a TV appearance).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
In
everyday life the natural direction of things is from order to disorder, and if
we want anything nice it takes constant effort. Left to itself, our house would
decay and fall apart. The same holds true for everything in our house,
including our own bodies. Even the stones in our house will chip and crack.
Therefore, if you had a fish, one that was perfectly good a moment ago but just
died, and you laid it in shallow water on the side of a warm little pond; you
know perfectly well what would happen. If that fish was not eaten by something,
it would decay and fall apart. And, once it decayed, it would be contrary to
reason for us to think that the chemicals that fish was made of might come back
together, organize themselves into a fish, and lie there on the side of that
pond until a chance lightning strike brought the fish back to life. Yet that is
exactly how
Conclusion
Christians should never be intimidated by
evolutionists. We have the facts, they have fantasy. Because the Bible was
written by the same God who gave us our reason and set the “laws of science” in
motion, the opinions of men may contradict the Word of God, but the facts never
do.