God or Godlessness: Which Requires More Faith?

by / on February 10, 2015 at 6:37 am /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

Phil Jensen

ADVERTISEMENT


Which belief requires more faith: belief in God, or belief in godlessness? That’s easy: godlessness. After all, science is on the side of a belief in God as creator and orderer of the universe.

When we don’t know very much about science and what makes the universe function the way it does, it’s easy to believe “it all just happened.”  The more we learn about the complex laws of science and intricacies required to make things function in an ordered, coherent fashion, the more the evidence points to an intelligent designer. Without even getting into the scientific problem of how matter would come into existence from nothing, or the scientific problem of how life would come from lifeless materials when that has never even once been observed to happen, the astronomical mechanics of a solar system that could support life point to an unusually unique situation in our solar system.

At what point does the monumental pile of “coincidences” necessary to support atheism get so laughable that the rational person has to admit that the evidence points toward an intelligent designer?  At what point do we admit that all the unscientific events necessary to support materialism and naturalism point to the impossibility of a spontaneous universe?

Rick Kriebel 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

In the end, the faith of the atheist puts the Christian to shame in terms of its blind nature–indeed, in terms of the ability to believe something in direct contradiction to a huge amount of evidence.

Of course, isn’t it ultimately shameful to doggedly insist that something is true when there is not only a dearth of evidence to support your contention…but a host of evidence that flatly contradicts your contention?  This is where the materialist and the atheist finds himself.

And it’s not a good place to be.

Forgotten_Factor_Banner_Ad_653x197

ADVERTISEMENT

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly
  • Nikola Tasev

    When a scientist speaks about the “appearance of design” it does not mean evidence for design. This is the same argument that is cherry picked from Darwin. After all, much of science is unintuitive.
    Evidence is where “intelligent design” falls flat.
    Life, as we know it, requires a lot of conditions. It adapted for those conditions. If the conditions were different, if the Universe was radically different, life could have arisen in a different form - one that is unknown to us.

    • Yeah, since many scientists are morally and ideologically invested in there not being an intelligent designer, they try to write off the overwhelming evidence of design in the universe being just a colossal, amazing, incredible “coincidence.”

      In other words, “Yeah, it appears to be designed. But it’s not…because we know it’s not.”

      Yes, very “scientific.”

      • Nikola Tasev

        Not “because we know it’s not”. Because there is no evidence. Because appearance is not evidence.
        And Occam’s Razor dictates that the hypothesis that requires fewer assumptions is to be preferred. Intelligent design requires more complicated assumptions (a designer).

        • There is an abundance of evidence of an intelligent designer. Did you even watch the video (which, incidentally, only scratched the surface of the evidence, but still provided compelling evidence)? The odds of this ordered universe happening by accident are quite literally astronomical-yet here you are claiming there is no evidence of design. That’s precisely what I meant by “because we know it’s not.”

          The materialist asserts the universe MUST have come about spontaneously and that there is no evidence of intelligent design…even though science indicates that matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing…even though science indicates matter does not spontaneously organize itself into more complex and functional forms…even though science indicates life does not spontaneously come into existence from lifeless materials…and on and on and on.

          No evidence? Open your eyes!

          • Nikola Tasev

            Of course I watched the video, I quoted from it.
            The video states that for life to occur there are 200 conditions that must be met perfectly, missing the fact that our life adapted to our present conditions.
            The video quotes people, including the “appearance of design” quote, ignoring the fact that appearances or quotations are not evidence.
            Science indicates that in emergent processes (like the forming of window frost, snowflakes, termite “cathedrals” and so on) very complex structures can arise from simple rules.
            Science has many hypotheses about how life came into existence, and the one about intelligent design is considered the least likely.
            So please check again what science indicates and what it does not.

            • “Considered least likely” by people who ignore the evidence for intelligent design.

              I suppose that rock formation to which I provided a link is highly unlikely to be of intelligent design, right?

              • Nikola Tasev

                Considered least likely by the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists.
                The rock formation bears marks of human intervention, and not emergent process. Unlike life there is plenty of evidence it is human made.

              • You mean the “qualified” scientists who refuse to even consider the evidence because it contradicts their worldview.

                Regarding the rock formation, maybe it only has the appearance of human intervention. There is no reason to believe that just because it appears to be intelligently designed that it actually is intelligently designed. The odds are that this rock formation’s similarity to human likenesses is a mere coincidence. Human intervention is actually the least likely explanation for its appearance, don’t you think? After all, no intelligent designer can be observed in the picture, correct?

              • Nikola Tasev

                There are marks from human tools and instruments on Rushmore. The method of creation is well understood. Not so with life.

                There is documentary evidence (photos included) of its creators and construction. Not so with life.

                The origin and history of its creators are known well, and do not pose additional assumptions that cannot be explained. The Intelligent designer of life has no evident origin and history.
                So human intervention is the most likely explanation. They could have been created 6000 years ago, or last Thursday, along with all the evidence for their creation by humans, but this is not backed by evidence and is not a reasonable conclusion.

              • There are marks from intelligent design left on the universe, and life itself.

                There is documentary evidence of the creation of the universe, and life itself.

                The origin and history of the creator of life and the universe is well known (though we don’t know everything about him, just as you’d be hard-pressed to name even one or two of the creators of Mt Rushmore without looking them up).

                Of course, we could ignore all this and just suppose that these rocks just happened to appear this way by chance. In our minds, this could be just as likely if not more.

              • DCM7

                “Considered least likely by the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists.”
                Excellent example of the appeal-to-authority fallacy.

              • Nikola Tasev

                These people are not too intelligent to ever be wrong, they just spend a lot of their time testing and correcting each other.
                If you believe you know better just write a scientific paper on the topic and get your Nobel prize.

              • DCM7

                “they just spend a lot of their time testing and correcting each other”
                But evolutionism is not accepted because it has been tested; it is accepted based on philosophical beliefs that have become literally prevented from being challenged scientifically. So-called “correcting each other” is of no use in these circumstances.
                “If you believe you know better just write a scientific paper on the topic and get your Nobel prize”
                In today’s “scientific” environment, nothing that challenges the sacred cow of evolutionism will be accepted, regardless of its merits. This has been demonstrated time and time again.
                The appeal-to-authority fallacy has never been more relevant than it is today. Many things are considered “scientific” because “experts” say so, not because they’re scientific. The power of the word “science” is deliberately used as a weapon against disagreement.

              • Nikola Tasev

                “But evolutionism is not accepted because it has been tested”
                Evolution is observed and tested in labs and in the wild. Adaptation via DNA change is happening all the time (e.g. E. coli long-term evolution experiment). Ring species and speciation have been observed in nature.

              • Evolution has never been observed even a single time in either the field or the laboratory.

                Genetic variation is no more evolution than the word “serendipity” in a scrabble game indicates evolution. In other words, it is a variation using the already-supplied base set of 26 characters.

                No organism, including bacteria, has ever been observed to spontaneously generate new and functional genetic information. Even the alleged “evidence of evolution” regarding antibiotic resistant bacteria involves not NEW genetic information but rather a LOSS of genetic information (the bacteria has lost the ability to process the antibiotic protein, thus the antibiotic cannot kill the bacteria). The end result is (temporarily) beneficial to the bacteria, giving desperately hopeful evolutionists the illusion of “evolution”, but it is actually the LOSS of genetic diversity, which ultimately is a negative for the organism. It is NOT the evolution of a new organic function, but rather the loss of an organic function that, in this particular instance, just happens to be beneficial in a limited capacity.

                In all the years we’ve observed bacteria, with until generations of bacteria living, reproducing and dying, not a single one of them has evolved into anything other than, well, bacteria.

                Sorry, no evolution going on either in the lab or the field.

                Remember: assumptions are not the same thing as facts.

              • Nikola Tasev

                “No organism, including bacteria, has ever been observed to spontaneously generate new and functional genetic information.”
                The nylon-eating bacteria (Flavobacterium ) has a new enzyme, not found in its close relatives. How is that the result of a loss of DNA?
                “In all the years we’ve observed bacteria, with until generations of bacteria living, reproducing and dying, not a single one of them has evolved into anything other than, well, bacteria.”
                In all of the years we’ve observed animals they have never evolved into something other than animals… you are aware that there are many different species of bacteria, right? They may look the same, but they are as different from each other as we are different from frogs.

              • The reason the nylon-eating bacteria can process nylon is because of a loss of genetic information in a key enzyme’s specificity, allowing it to hydrolize a wider variety of molecular compounds. The genetic change within the organism didn’t produce a new enzyme, but rather an enzyme with a loss of protein specificity.

                As with the antibiotic resistant bacteria, we have a LOSS of genetic information which gives the appearance of something new because it has an isolated beneficial application. A loss of genetic information is usually detrimental to an organism in the long run, just as losing some of the letters in a scrabble game means you can’t come up with as many words in the future, or losing a few bolts off your car means you’ll probably run into problems down the road.

                A less genetically robust organism means it is less capable of dealing with changes and threats in the future,

                And in the end, even with a nylon-eating bacteria, you don’t have it evolving into a palm tree, a lizard, or a dog. In the end, you still have just a bacteria…with a net loss of genetic information.

                Also, speciation is not evolution, certainly not the type that would be needed to explain an amoeba to man evolution. Different species of dogs are still DOGS. Different species of goats are still GOATS. In other words, they are genetic variations of the same basic animal.

                How many words can you you make from the letters in “candy canes”? About 60, including words such as ascendancy, canned, dance, sane and easy. This is not a perfect example of what I’m talking about, but it should still do to illustrate the point (like the letters in a scrabble game). If you came up with a completely new word, or even character, that wasn’t in the original, then you’d have evolution.

                Until you get a dog out of a cat, or something similar, you just have genetic variation within the same kind of animal.

                NOT evolution.

              • retiredday

                So the liberal agenda-driven Nobel prize is what you think legitimizes a scientific paper? Papers on unapproved theories such as intelligent design aren’t published because they are politically incorrect. Agenda-driven “scientists” refuse to discuss it on its merits because they (you) refuse to consider anything that challenges the presuppositions of your world view (scientific naturalism). Your club refuses to let anyone play marbles with you unless they first begin with your godless premises. It’s a neat little box in your mind, but it isn’t objective or open to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You don’t like where the evidence is leading, so you refuse to allow it as evidence. You are not trying to discover reality. You have already decided what it is and refuse to see anything other than that. As the writer of this article points out. That takes a great deal of faith because it flies in the face of truth.

            • retiredday

              “the fact that our life adapted to our present conditions.”

              Using your own construct, you have no evidential basis for saying this…only the appearance of evidence. Your “science” appears to be nothing more than the appearance of science.

              If you do not consider the very nature of DNA information evidence for design, you are being intellectually dishonest. The information in the human genome is in the structure of language. In that language, a single strand of DNA contains more information than the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. And yet so-called scientific thinkers reject that as evidence of design.

              It just proves the old adage that despite protestations disguised to be objective, scientific naturalism only sees what it wants to see and denies anything that appears to challenge its presuppositions.

        • Did this rock formation come about spontaneously, or did it have an intelligent designer? And how can you tell?

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Mount_Rushmore_(1).jpg

        • DCM7

          “Because there is no evidence.”
          It’s always amusing how evolutionists make such flat statements so confidently, and with no basis.
          What you mean is, when you refuse to accept something, there is no evidence for it that will ever be enough.

    • retiredday

      “Evidence is where “intelligent design” falls flat.”

      Nonsense. You ignore the testimony of Irreducible complexity (such as the flagellum motor) and the highly complex process of blood clotting, which already had to have been established for any species to survive. There’s a lot of evidence out there. But you can’t see it when you cover your eyes.

      • Nikola Tasev

        The Irreducible complexity argument has been discredited long ago. It states that if a mechanism or system lacks of any part it would stop working, therefore its construction from a simpler working system is impossible.
        The easiest explanation is that nature does not work only by adding parts. It could evolve a working system by adding parts, and then change or remove a part leading to an irreducible system. The arches are such constructs, if made by humans - it one part is removed they would fall. So arches are irreducibly complex. The last step of construction was not part adding, but removing the support that allowed the unfinished arch to stay in place and not collapse.
        Another explanation is that the system could have another beneficial function before changing and becoming irreducibly complex.
        As for the flagellum motor, there is a video on Youtube called “The Evolution of the Flagellum”. Or you could read peer- reviewed scientific papers if you do not trust internet videos.

        • retiredday

          “The easiest explanation is that nature does not work only by adding parts. It could evolve a working system by adding parts, and then change or remove a part leading to an irreducible system.”

          This is an example of the kind of faith required in believing that the various mechanisms and systems of life evolved, rather than being designed. The proposal that a system might develop incrementally over time is nonsense because if a system does not work, the organism would not survive and evolution of the system would have no opportunity to get off first base.

          You must have a “woulda-coulda-shoulda” faith in order to hold your position.

          One comment on the concept of “peer reviewed”: Because the “Scientific community” refuses to consider the idea of Design acceptable, they ignore the growing number of scientists who do, and they don’t really consider them their peers. The state of peer review in science today is not more political than objective.

        • DCM7

          “The Irreducible complexity argument has been discredited long ago.”
          Wrong. It has never been discredited. It has merely proved unpopular among those who refuse to accept an Intelligent Designer.
          What you cite is not evidence against the irreducible complexity argument. It is merely a set of weak excuses for denying it.

        • franklinb23

          Nikola,
          The premise that all life emerged from the asexual reproduction of single-celled organisms is intellectually difficult to grasp.

          I cannot see how or why an organism, via adaptation or mutations over time, should develop a single element of a complex biological system with multiple interdependencies.

          If evolution requires there to be some biological advantage for a mutation to be acquired and passed on, doesn’t this contradict the simultaneous assertion that these mutations have *no* biological advantage until that system of which they’re a part are complete?

          Can you provide an example of a known organism or species that had such a mutation and where an apparently useless gland or organ developed over millennia into some system?