Are Science and Religion Opposed?

We hear this claim all the time from the new atheist crowd.  So, is it true?  The idea that science and religion are opposed is absolutely ludicrous. However, the religion of atheism is definitely opposed to science. And for obvious reasons.

Something far too many people, including an embarrassing number of PhD scientists, are woefully ignorant of the fact that all science is founded upon philosophical and religious assumptions. Atheism provides no metaphysical assumptions upon which any science at all can be rightfully rooted.

FACT: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Walter Reed, Dmitri Mendeleev, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Mendel, Marconi, world leader in sickle cell anemia research, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Werner von Braun, Pupin, Walter Lammerts, AE Wilder Smith – with 3 earned doctorates in science! Raymond Damadian Inventer of the MRI,  … and on and on the list goes … were all men of very strong religious beliefs. Indeed, they were all theists and creationists and IDists.

FACT: Modern science and the modern scientific method were founded and established by creationists, not merely religious people but creationists.

Thus the exceedingly foolish claim of the new atheists, that science and religion are somehow opposed, and that one must choose one or the other to establish ones’ facts, is simply stunningly wrong. That claim means that the people who started modern science were the same people whose beliefs opposed science. So what do the atheist do in response to the historical facts? They pretend that somehow, these creationists, these deeply religious people who founded modern science, did so without any reference to their beliefs, that their science had nothing to do with what they believed. And of course, that is more utter nonsense.

FACT: The founders of modern science rooted that science in their theism.  As C.S. Lewis so rightly stated,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

And as even atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Most people think that science and religion are, and necessarily must be, in conflict. In fact, this ‘warfare’ metaphor, so beloved of nineteenth-century rationalists, has only a tenuous application to reality. For most of the history of Christianity; it was the Church that was the home of science.” – p. 671 in Ruse, Michael Introduction to Part X (Creationism) in The philosophy of biology edited by David L. Hull and Michael Ruse. 1998

In fact, virtually all the historical experts agree on the fact that it was withing the Christianity that modern science was founded and grew. Indeed, a fact that ought to be disturbing for atheists, but obviously isn’t because their ignorance of the history of science is so profound, is that virtually NO atheists were involved in the establishing of modern science. And for good reason.  Atheism does not allow for any view of the world that includes a reason to believe that law, order and comprehensibility ought to characterize the universe.  This fact has been discussed in great detail in the philosophy of science by people like Rodney Stark in his book, “For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery”.

Or even Loren Eiseley who wrote,

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’ – Eiseley, L., Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961

And distinguished University Professor at Seton Hall University, in South Orange, New Jersey, Stanley Jaki, a leading contributor to the philosophy and the history of science wrote,

“The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest.” — Jaki, Stanley L., Creation and Science (1974)

“The birth of science came only when the seeds of science were planted in a soil which Christian faith in God made receptive to natural theology and to the epistemology implied in it. The transition from that first viable birth to maturity was made neither in the name of Baconian empiricism nor in the name of Cartesian rationalism. The transition was made in a perspective adopted by Newton, chiefly responsible for completing that transition. The next two centuries saw the rise of philosophical movements, all hostile to natural theology. Whatever lip service to science, they all posed a threat to it. The blows they aimed at man’s knowledge of God were as many blows a knowledge, at science, and at the rationality of the universe. All those philosophical movements from Hume to Mach also meant an explicit endorsement of the idea of eternal returns, an idea which from the viewpoint of science acted as the chief road into its great historical blind alleys.” – S. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God, p. 160

Dr. Ronald Numbers, Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison stated,

“The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict. No one bears more responsibility for promoting this notion than two nineteenth-century American polemicists: Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) and John William Draper (1811-1882)… Historians of science have known for years that White’s and Draper’s accounts are more propaganda than history.” (Galileo Goes to Jail. pg.1,2,6

Indeed, White is one of the principle characters responsible for the lies and false ideas that have spread opposing science and religion. Again, there were virtually no atheists involved in the founding of modern science. Atheism offers no grounds for any belief in any kind of science whatsoever. Atheism has no reason to believe the universe is ordered and understandable.

FACT: 65% of all Nobels were won by Christians.

Worse still, the Christian founders of modern science managed to open the world and change world history by developing a method of inquiry into the natural world based on that which is allegedly “diametrically opposed” to everything they believed! Thus making the founding of modern science a MIRACLE.

The ignorance and stupidity of claiming science and religion are opposed, is thus revealed to be simply astonishing.



Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction

The book “Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction”, is available on Amazon:

Canadian site:
USA site:

Religion is blamed for almost everything wrong in the world these days. Is that justified? Religion has a very bad name but is that deserved? Sometimes it is, but only when referring to man-made, organized religion. Otherwise, everyone is inherently religious in the sense of having a worldview, a set of beleifs about “life, the universe and everything”, a set of moral principles and ideological convictions.

Is religion, in itselfm a human folly? Did man create God in his own image?
Or are religion, faith, spirituality as natural a phenomenon as breathing?

Is it all madness based on fairy tales and myths or something intelligent based on reality and facts?
I’ve offered concrete, well researched, logic, sciecne and history based answers in this book.

It’s full of great information for theistic apologists, skeptics looking for honest answers and even atheists ready to look honestly at the facts.
The information will understand much better the logical and simple explanations that will remove the confusion. The book covers, for example,

• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The true sources of what people think about it today, often without realizing it
• A simple and universal definition of what religion is that everyone can agree on
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• The function of humanitarian aid which must be a main function of any valid religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Life after death: Diane Komp , Carl Jung, Howard Storm and many others
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions

Check it out, in either digital or hard copy. It’s priced low to make this ifnormation available to even the lowest budget.



Are Atheists Rational?

Notice that the title of this article is not “Is Atheism Rational”.  One of the things that all the new atheists claim is that they are “free thinkers”, rational, logical, science and evidenced-based in having chosen atheism.  Is this true?  In fact is light years away from the truth.

Here are some facts about atheism and it’s inescapable logical implications and conclusions.

In atheism, you have no choice but to believe yourself an electrochemically animated “bag of meat” or a bag of chemicals. National Academy of Sciences, Anthony Cashmore claims that we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

“Materialism—the belief that nothing exists except matter, if true, means there is no place for any explanation of people and the ‘choices’ they make other than chemistry—the interactions of genes and the environment, and the random behaviour of matter.”


Cashmore thus claims that the concept of human responsibility is also invalid. According to him, the evolutionary process gave rise only to the illusion of responsibility. Indeed, he maintains,

“neither religious beliefs, nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical world.”*  –  The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499-4504, 2010; html Antony Cashmore is Robert I. Williams Prof essor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Prof. Will. Provine  said,

“There is no way that the evolutionary process … can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.”

So is evolution compatible with free will? Nope.  So is morality compatible with no free will? Nope. Cashmore wrote,

“The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”

And he says that freely, of his own volition? Apparently not. Not without glaring self-contradiction. But that’s atheism’s only possibility – as bags of chemicals or meat.   Atheism is an idea that doesn’t even matter and has never done anything good in the whole history of the world, but has caused irreparable damage and mass death.

Now here is the fatal flaw in all this atheist nonsense. Rationality depends upon free will.  Rationality means being capable of understanding and choosing between conceptual alternatives. The No Free Will claim, if true, negates that possibility completely and finally. How can you choose what idea is correct and which is not, if you are not free to choose it? Stunningly obvious.

Atheist scientist Peter Atkins says,

“Free will is merely the ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the organised interplay of shifts of atoms.”  – Atkins, Peter, The Creation, W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd, Oxford, 1981

I wonder if Atkins thinks that he freely choose to believe that and say that? Not according to himself. His DNA did it.

Atheist Nobel laureate Francis Crick wrote,

“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”  (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

The late William Provine also stated,

” Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

So much for anyone being a free thinker and thinking for themselves.  Atheism’s super star TV evangelists shot that false idea to hell.  All this clearly implies that as bags of meat, no one ever really selects their beliefs, their own concepts based upon logical evaluation, critical thinking and personal choice. Under atheism, therefore, since free will is an illusion of the brain and we are nothing but sacks of meat, real rationality cannot even exist. Bags of meat cannot reason or rationally come to conclusions. Atheism means that you are nothing but a biological automaton, a robot, a computer that deludes itself into thinking itself rational and free while being nothing but a clump of conglomerated matter with integrated circuits giving the illusion of real volition.

No other conclusion is even possible, if atheism is true.  Atheists sometimes counter this by claiming that we have tested our brains and proved that our faculties of reason are in correspondence with reality. This too is a gross error and lack of intellectual depth. You cannot test your brain using your brain. Nor can you test all brains using brains. There is simply no way to really know that what the human mind is doing is truly related to reality.  We fall into The Matrix scenario. How do we know that we’re not all bags of flesh hooked up to machines with our brains being pumped full of illusions of a reality? We don’t. Not under atheism.

Moreover, only in deism or theism can we assume that the mind is rational, based upon it’s being made by a super intellect, as Sir Fred Hoyle called it.

Again, we are left with a serious vital choice to make. God or stupidity.

Atheism is a debilitating religious position with no foundations in logic or rational thinking – rationality cannot even exist in atheism. Another thing atheists fail to see. Meat can never be rational. Rationality itself is metaphysical, not physical.  Atoms moving in any form cannot be rational. Sad really. Just freaking sad.

The great theist philosopher – and ex-atheist – C.S. Lewis wrote,

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist -another words, that the whole of reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”.
“If he is honest, the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” If all thoughts are merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true.”
-C.S. Lewis

Simple and absolutely logical. And with that, there goes the ballgame for atheists. If they remain atheists, they cannot remain logically consistent with themselves if they claim they are free thinkers or free anything else, nor truly rational beings. They are obliged to consider themselves bio-automatons with no more self-determination than a hamburger.


The Religion of Atheism

How many times per day do atheists, worldwide, deny that atheism is a religion?  My guess is millions. Why? Because wherever there is debate on the existence of God vs atheism, you are absolutely guaranteed that sooner or later in the discussion, the word religion will be brought in and the atheists present will be eschewing all religion.

But then some deist or theist will tell them that atheism itself is a religion, having all the telltale signs.  At that point the atheists will get angry, act insulted, and arrogantly state that atheism isn’t a religion and that if atheism is a religion, then not playing tennis is a sport – or some such similar analogy (which they parrot from the priests of atheism). They radically deny that atheism is a religion because they despise religion per se and cannot endure to have their own beliefs called religion. It’s psychotic for some of them.

Continue reading

Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the “God of the gaps” accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A “refutation” that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use “gap” arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things “scientific”.

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.

However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have? None, assuming this God is wise and good.

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?

In theism, we infer, through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin’s statement is in fact simply wrong, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call “science” and it works.

Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true?

Thank God it isn’t!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle”
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.

God of the Gaps?

Well here we go ladies and gents.  Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist bad thinking must be exposed for what it really is.

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position – it’s not merely a “lack” of a position, as they foolishly pretend to themselves these days – is devoid of intelligence and in fact annihilates intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non rational processes and of course is an “accident”.  Under atheism, rationality is just electrochemical movement in the brain – 3 lbs of meat.  As Francis Crick himself said,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”  -(p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Atheism says that your rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to give an account for his own life, including his denial of the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.

Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their position, into their all too often stubborn minds.

In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (no, these are not the same).

Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities and semantic structures found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a logical fallacy.  Specifically they claim this type of statement is a “God of the gaps argument”.  This simply means that, because you can’t explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.  God fills in the gap where the knowledge of how is missing.

God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain.  This is of course a form of “argument from ignorance”.  And believe me, Darwinians everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them this, over and over and over.  Here I would love to start a nice discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave web sites, in books etc. Of course, everyone does this to some degree, citing authorities, but the atheist Darwinian crowd does little else.

They do not seem to think well or for themselves, so having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra through the public education system, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and gurus.  So, they have indoctrination and “counseling” from their priests to know what to believe.

So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:

“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc. on this.

People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution did this, but 2) there is great evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot do this, and there is irrefutable evidence that only intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information that is found everywhere in biological systems.  Therefore, the best explanation is not evolution but intelligent origin.

Very few creationists or IDists will simply say,  “God did it and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”.  In recent years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like that.  So, when misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, or, incapable of thinking straight, seriously not listening, or all of the above.

In my personal experience it is always been the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.

Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by any known random or stochastic process including mutations, plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely against applying to their own theory. How many times have I read that “probabilities do not apply to living, reproductive organisms”? Too many!

Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated, specified functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery. That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even less odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot.

Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal. Notice that Darwinists have never, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the only way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture – most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have. Just-so stories fill the Darwinian literature.

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye? They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you know what I’m talking about it.  Even the scenarios given by so-called professional scientists.  There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian pathways for vision and eyes.  None.  Not even remotely close.

Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway – less than 100 steps (rotfl) – that they think may have, could have, must have etc., been the real evolutionary one. So how about evidence for such naive suppositions – they’re always ridiculously naive – on how something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real empirical evidence.

Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps. They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same in meaning – evolution did it.

In other words, Darwinists are the worst offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very, very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous dismissal of any other theory, “evolution did it!”


“We don’t need proof!! We know evolution did it!”

“How do you know this, without proof?”

“Because no God exists!”

Yes, many of them really do say this in such terms.  Meaning that their real reason for supporting neo Darwiniism is religious, not scientific! There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.

Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being naive and demonstrating a profound ignorance. Just to help you out:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
– Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.

And just look at this quote:
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’
– Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  And say what?! Scientists lie!? Oh my, who would have thought?!
So, neo Darwinists are, for the most part, in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very old heathen religion.
Religion? Yes. Therefore it should be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism in public schools.  So why isn’t it?