Sam Weaver
The Atheistic religion and modern "science" Part I
By Sam Weaver
Every living, rational, sane and sentient human being (including Richard Dawkins, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, "the science guy" and Bill Maher) has a religion.
At this point, you may already be thinking, "Weaver, that is absurd! Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Maher are all Atheists. They despise religion and all things religious!"
Let's investigate.
What is religion?
Every religion is comprised of two major concepts: 1) an explanation of origins; i.e., how the universe and all of its systems, principles (and laws*), energy and matter (including living things and, of course, human beings) came to be; and 2) an ethic; i.e., how human beings should conduct their lives – and to what end, or for what purpose they should do so.
A person's religion is the foundation of his worldview. His political ideology, his economic philosophy and his scientific/artistic/business pursuits are all rooted in his religious perceptions/conceptions.
What is the Atheist's religion?
The religion of the Atheist is today – and always has been – naturalism. Naturalism, of course, is the belief that only the natural world exists; that there is no supernatural, or spiritual realm and no Divine, Supreme Creator and Author of Law.
There were attempts – primarily, perhaps, in ancient Asia, but also in ancient Greece and Rome – to give naturalism (Atheism) both a "valid" explanation of origins and a "valid" ethic. These efforts were largely failures, although some elements (e.g., in Asia, mixed with polytheism; and in Greece & Rome, called humanism) exist to this very day. Naturalism (Atheism) was never accepted by-and-large as a stand-alone religion (at least, not in the West) because it could not adequately explain origins and it could not provide a definitive ethic. [Please see Linda Kimball!]
In the 18th and 19th centuries, along came proponents of naturalism (Atheism) Hutton, Lyell and Darwin. (For some small bit of detail, please see paragraphs 8-10 of the above link.) In a nutshell, Charles Darwin proposed the "theory" of evolution as a naturalistic explanation of origins in his book On the Origin of Species, published in the year of our Lord, 1859.
Fast forward to the 1930's. The Atheistic religion was beginning to crystallize. Its explanation of origins? The "Big Bang 'theory'" and Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution! [Ironically, the Big Bang "theory" was first proposed in 1927 by a Belgian Catholic monsignor who was seeking to "reconcile" his faith and modern physics. Edwin Hubble's observations some two years later seemed to confirm the monsignor's proposal. However, things are not always as they seem. There are many large and looming problems with this "theory!"] Its ethic? If you ask most Atheists, they will probably say that it is "Do no harm." Yet, if you dig deeper, you may find that "no harm" is a relative and "evolutionary" ethical term prone to "progressive" moral degeneration. Bottom line: The morally relative and progressively degenerating ethics of naturalism (Atheism) have evolved into today's Western liberal ethos, "If it feels good or seems right at the moment, as long as it harms no one other than a wealthy white, Christian male or any other person outside of the womb, then go ahead and do it!"**
Shortfalls of the Atheistic religion
The problems with the Atheistic explanation of origins are far too numerous to mention here. Let's look very briefly at just a few.
Life cannot come from non-life under any known or conceivable physical (natural) process or circumstance. To assume that it can or did at one or any time is not scientific. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey may or may not have generated amino acids under supposed "early Earth-like" conditions in a laboratory, but they most certainly did not generate life! To this day, the "Urey-Miller" experiment has never been replicated. Yet, it is cited in textbooks even today as "evidence" that life can arise via electro/chemical processes. The Frankenstein monster exists only in the imagination.
Macroevolution (i.e., evolution from a lower or "simple" life form into a higher, more complex life form) has never been observed in nature or in any laboratory. To blindly assume that macroevolution has occurred innumerable times, even over billions of years, in the absence of any direct or verifiable evidence to that effect is blind faith; not proven science. Microbes become drug resistant. Fruit flies become resistant to pesticides. They evolve and adapt. This is called microevolution (or, adaptation). Bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into fruit flies. Fruit flies have always been fruit flies, or some variation of their kind. They never evolve into beetles! There is no evidence in either the scientific laboratory or observable nature found in support of the myth of macroevolution. Belief in macroevolution is solely based in blind faith. It is far from scientific fact!
If macro- (Darwinian) evolution had truly been the process by which all extinct and extant plant and animal species arose, then we would expect the fossil record to be inundated with (often grossly misshapen) transitional forms. Where are all the intermediate stages (i.e., transitional forms) between insects and arachnids, arachnids and crustaceans; between worms and frogs, frogs and fish; between mice and cats, cats and dogs, and on and on and on and on? The transitional forms are just not there!
How did the first living organism come to be?
Every living organism consists of at least one cell. According to the "conventional wisdom" of today's naturalists (Atheists) who falsely call their unproven theories and unverified experiments "modern 'science,'" under just the right circumstances billions of years ago, atoms, molecules, amino acids, peptides, etc., came together to form the first "simple" cell. Over many millions of years and purely natural, random happenstances, these "simple" cells began to coalesce independently into more complex life forms. Eventually, one of those more complex life forms became human. How did that first cell achieve life? How did that first complex life form become male and female? How did the first humans achieve thought and reason? The answers to these questions by Atheists are often hilarious. "Evolution did it!" Like "Evolution" is conscious and has a purpose and a plan!
How on Earth is this statement of unproven conjecture in blind faith by assumption any more valid from a scientific standpoint than the Christian who says, "God did it!"??!! Science is a quest for knowledge. Every quest for knowledge begins with a worldview.
Just three of many reasons why the Atheistic explanation of origins cannot be considered scientific are briefly outlined above. [Life cannot come from non-life. Lower life forms do not beget higher life forms. Evidence does not support macroevolution.] But there is much more!
Again, because time and space are limited, I will cite just one more of virtually countless reasons why modern "science" (i.e., the naturalistic explanation of origins) is not scientific.
It was not until about 100 years after Darwin first proposed his "theory" that mankind really began to realize that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell. Even Darwin knew that there are three main components of every cell. Very simple, right? Coincidentally?, DNA was first identified by a Swiss chemist just a few years after Darwin proposed his "theory" to the world. Yet it was not until after the mid-1950's, with the work of Watson and Crick, that the highly intricate and inscrutably complex structure, function, purpose and processes of DNA even began to be understood and appreciated.
As mentioned previously, there are three main components of every cell: 1) the cell wall (or membrane), 2) for lack of a better term, the central processing unit [In eukaryotic cells, this is called the (DNA-containing) nucleus. In prokaryotic cells (i.e., bacteria), it is basically a DNA-containing region of the interior of the cell.] and 3) the cytoplasm (containing organelles vital to the function of the cell). Each of these components has an essential role to play in the function of the cell. Independently, they could not exist and/or would have no purpose whatsoever. How could purely natural, random processes simultaneously create these components, bring them together and give them life? Better yet, how could purely natural, random happenstances encode the megabytes of information that exist within every molecule of DNA?
By whatever method or process the first living organism came to exist on this or any other planet, it could not have been by purely natural means. The atheistic explanation of origins is a fantasy. It requires much more faith (in naturalism) than the Judeo-Christian requires (in G-d; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost). Modern "science" is not scientific!
Science by consensus
Many Americans today have learned (or are learning) that "science by consensus" is a ruse – a total scam and a major fraud. The surest way for any university or private venture to receive lucrative government grants is to cite "anthropogenic climate change" as the subject of its research. "The 'science' has been 'settled' (by a consensus of 'scientists')." Unfortunately for them, actual scientific data has been indicating for well over a decade now that the "science" is very far from settled! Science by consensus is not science!! It is tyranny!
Most Americans must learn that the Atheistic explanation of origins is not "settled 'science!'" Naturalism, Darwinism, the Big Bang "theory" and modern dating techniques are all matters of pure – and, for the most part, blind – faith rooted in certain unproved and/or disproved assumptions, interpretations, interpolations and ideas. It is not science at all!!
Many of us alive today have been taught all our lives that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. "It is a known scientific fact." "Darwinian (macro-) evolution is a known and proven scientific fact." Propaganda – the Big Lie (Große Lüge) – is powerful and very effective. Many have fallen for the Big Lie. Fall completely for the Big Lie, and you will lose your soul. Please, do not lose your soul! Do not deny the Source of American Liberty – the Judeo-Christian Creator and Author of Law, and of True Liberty!!
Vital links
Linda Kimball
Alan Caruba
Prager University
Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson: Same Old Product, Bright New Packaging
*There are four categories (or types) of law. First, there is religious (or moral) law. Religious laws comprise the duties one owes to God. The Atheist's god is nature, or Planet Earth. This explains why naturalistic environmentalists are so concerned with revering, or "saving the planet." Second, there is political (or ethical) law. Political laws constitute the duties one owes to fellow human beings. Third, there is economic (or fiscal) law. Finally, there is scientific (or physical) law. Generally, economic and scientific laws make up the Laws of Nature. Religious and political laws (as outlined in the Ten Commandments) express the Laws of Nature's God.
**I plan to elaborate on the Atheistic ethic in my next article. I hope to be a bit fairer to my Atheist brothers and sisters than I was here. Of course, they will not think it to be fair; but, maybe, just maybe, they will think! Of course, I will not be holding my breath!
© Sam Weaver
March 18, 2014
Every living, rational, sane and sentient human being (including Richard Dawkins, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, "the science guy" and Bill Maher) has a religion.
At this point, you may already be thinking, "Weaver, that is absurd! Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Maher are all Atheists. They despise religion and all things religious!"
Let's investigate.
What is religion?
Every religion is comprised of two major concepts: 1) an explanation of origins; i.e., how the universe and all of its systems, principles (and laws*), energy and matter (including living things and, of course, human beings) came to be; and 2) an ethic; i.e., how human beings should conduct their lives – and to what end, or for what purpose they should do so.
A person's religion is the foundation of his worldview. His political ideology, his economic philosophy and his scientific/artistic/business pursuits are all rooted in his religious perceptions/conceptions.
What is the Atheist's religion?
The religion of the Atheist is today – and always has been – naturalism. Naturalism, of course, is the belief that only the natural world exists; that there is no supernatural, or spiritual realm and no Divine, Supreme Creator and Author of Law.
There were attempts – primarily, perhaps, in ancient Asia, but also in ancient Greece and Rome – to give naturalism (Atheism) both a "valid" explanation of origins and a "valid" ethic. These efforts were largely failures, although some elements (e.g., in Asia, mixed with polytheism; and in Greece & Rome, called humanism) exist to this very day. Naturalism (Atheism) was never accepted by-and-large as a stand-alone religion (at least, not in the West) because it could not adequately explain origins and it could not provide a definitive ethic. [Please see Linda Kimball!]
In the 18th and 19th centuries, along came proponents of naturalism (Atheism) Hutton, Lyell and Darwin. (For some small bit of detail, please see paragraphs 8-10 of the above link.) In a nutshell, Charles Darwin proposed the "theory" of evolution as a naturalistic explanation of origins in his book On the Origin of Species, published in the year of our Lord, 1859.
Fast forward to the 1930's. The Atheistic religion was beginning to crystallize. Its explanation of origins? The "Big Bang 'theory'" and Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution! [Ironically, the Big Bang "theory" was first proposed in 1927 by a Belgian Catholic monsignor who was seeking to "reconcile" his faith and modern physics. Edwin Hubble's observations some two years later seemed to confirm the monsignor's proposal. However, things are not always as they seem. There are many large and looming problems with this "theory!"] Its ethic? If you ask most Atheists, they will probably say that it is "Do no harm." Yet, if you dig deeper, you may find that "no harm" is a relative and "evolutionary" ethical term prone to "progressive" moral degeneration. Bottom line: The morally relative and progressively degenerating ethics of naturalism (Atheism) have evolved into today's Western liberal ethos, "If it feels good or seems right at the moment, as long as it harms no one other than a wealthy white, Christian male or any other person outside of the womb, then go ahead and do it!"**
Shortfalls of the Atheistic religion
The problems with the Atheistic explanation of origins are far too numerous to mention here. Let's look very briefly at just a few.
Life cannot come from non-life under any known or conceivable physical (natural) process or circumstance. To assume that it can or did at one or any time is not scientific. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey may or may not have generated amino acids under supposed "early Earth-like" conditions in a laboratory, but they most certainly did not generate life! To this day, the "Urey-Miller" experiment has never been replicated. Yet, it is cited in textbooks even today as "evidence" that life can arise via electro/chemical processes. The Frankenstein monster exists only in the imagination.
Macroevolution (i.e., evolution from a lower or "simple" life form into a higher, more complex life form) has never been observed in nature or in any laboratory. To blindly assume that macroevolution has occurred innumerable times, even over billions of years, in the absence of any direct or verifiable evidence to that effect is blind faith; not proven science. Microbes become drug resistant. Fruit flies become resistant to pesticides. They evolve and adapt. This is called microevolution (or, adaptation). Bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into fruit flies. Fruit flies have always been fruit flies, or some variation of their kind. They never evolve into beetles! There is no evidence in either the scientific laboratory or observable nature found in support of the myth of macroevolution. Belief in macroevolution is solely based in blind faith. It is far from scientific fact!
If macro- (Darwinian) evolution had truly been the process by which all extinct and extant plant and animal species arose, then we would expect the fossil record to be inundated with (often grossly misshapen) transitional forms. Where are all the intermediate stages (i.e., transitional forms) between insects and arachnids, arachnids and crustaceans; between worms and frogs, frogs and fish; between mice and cats, cats and dogs, and on and on and on and on? The transitional forms are just not there!
How did the first living organism come to be?
Every living organism consists of at least one cell. According to the "conventional wisdom" of today's naturalists (Atheists) who falsely call their unproven theories and unverified experiments "modern 'science,'" under just the right circumstances billions of years ago, atoms, molecules, amino acids, peptides, etc., came together to form the first "simple" cell. Over many millions of years and purely natural, random happenstances, these "simple" cells began to coalesce independently into more complex life forms. Eventually, one of those more complex life forms became human. How did that first cell achieve life? How did that first complex life form become male and female? How did the first humans achieve thought and reason? The answers to these questions by Atheists are often hilarious. "Evolution did it!" Like "Evolution" is conscious and has a purpose and a plan!
How on Earth is this statement of unproven conjecture in blind faith by assumption any more valid from a scientific standpoint than the Christian who says, "God did it!"??!! Science is a quest for knowledge. Every quest for knowledge begins with a worldview.
Just three of many reasons why the Atheistic explanation of origins cannot be considered scientific are briefly outlined above. [Life cannot come from non-life. Lower life forms do not beget higher life forms. Evidence does not support macroevolution.] But there is much more!
Again, because time and space are limited, I will cite just one more of virtually countless reasons why modern "science" (i.e., the naturalistic explanation of origins) is not scientific.
It was not until about 100 years after Darwin first proposed his "theory" that mankind really began to realize that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell. Even Darwin knew that there are three main components of every cell. Very simple, right? Coincidentally?, DNA was first identified by a Swiss chemist just a few years after Darwin proposed his "theory" to the world. Yet it was not until after the mid-1950's, with the work of Watson and Crick, that the highly intricate and inscrutably complex structure, function, purpose and processes of DNA even began to be understood and appreciated.
As mentioned previously, there are three main components of every cell: 1) the cell wall (or membrane), 2) for lack of a better term, the central processing unit [In eukaryotic cells, this is called the (DNA-containing) nucleus. In prokaryotic cells (i.e., bacteria), it is basically a DNA-containing region of the interior of the cell.] and 3) the cytoplasm (containing organelles vital to the function of the cell). Each of these components has an essential role to play in the function of the cell. Independently, they could not exist and/or would have no purpose whatsoever. How could purely natural, random processes simultaneously create these components, bring them together and give them life? Better yet, how could purely natural, random happenstances encode the megabytes of information that exist within every molecule of DNA?
By whatever method or process the first living organism came to exist on this or any other planet, it could not have been by purely natural means. The atheistic explanation of origins is a fantasy. It requires much more faith (in naturalism) than the Judeo-Christian requires (in G-d; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost). Modern "science" is not scientific!
Science by consensus
Many Americans today have learned (or are learning) that "science by consensus" is a ruse – a total scam and a major fraud. The surest way for any university or private venture to receive lucrative government grants is to cite "anthropogenic climate change" as the subject of its research. "The 'science' has been 'settled' (by a consensus of 'scientists')." Unfortunately for them, actual scientific data has been indicating for well over a decade now that the "science" is very far from settled! Science by consensus is not science!! It is tyranny!
Most Americans must learn that the Atheistic explanation of origins is not "settled 'science!'" Naturalism, Darwinism, the Big Bang "theory" and modern dating techniques are all matters of pure – and, for the most part, blind – faith rooted in certain unproved and/or disproved assumptions, interpretations, interpolations and ideas. It is not science at all!!
Many of us alive today have been taught all our lives that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. "It is a known scientific fact." "Darwinian (macro-) evolution is a known and proven scientific fact." Propaganda – the Big Lie (Große Lüge) – is powerful and very effective. Many have fallen for the Big Lie. Fall completely for the Big Lie, and you will lose your soul. Please, do not lose your soul! Do not deny the Source of American Liberty – the Judeo-Christian Creator and Author of Law, and of True Liberty!!
Vital links
Linda Kimball
Alan Caruba
Prager University
Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson: Same Old Product, Bright New Packaging
*There are four categories (or types) of law. First, there is religious (or moral) law. Religious laws comprise the duties one owes to God. The Atheist's god is nature, or Planet Earth. This explains why naturalistic environmentalists are so concerned with revering, or "saving the planet." Second, there is political (or ethical) law. Political laws constitute the duties one owes to fellow human beings. Third, there is economic (or fiscal) law. Finally, there is scientific (or physical) law. Generally, economic and scientific laws make up the Laws of Nature. Religious and political laws (as outlined in the Ten Commandments) express the Laws of Nature's God.
**I plan to elaborate on the Atheistic ethic in my next article. I hope to be a bit fairer to my Atheist brothers and sisters than I was here. Of course, they will not think it to be fair; but, maybe, just maybe, they will think! Of course, I will not be holding my breath!
© Sam Weaver
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
