There’s no new information here that hasn’t been used by other such websites I’ve seen, although I do admit it’s presented very well, and the articles are well written. However, they are not well researched. To take a look at a few:

Refutation of Atheism: The Obvious Existence of God

This article uses the standard argument that the world we live in (and the universe) are just too perfect to have been created by chance. They make a lot of good points – we have just enough oxygen, the heat from the sun is just right, and we have all the water we really need. However, to put this in perspective, we must realize that humans are a very adaptable species that can adjust to a wide range of environments. We live in the arctic and on the equator. (I could get risky and say we evolved into this environment, but I’ll try to stay away from that… the fact that we can adapt is not questionable). Douglas Adams put it best when he said “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting *hole* I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’” You need merely think about something called observational bias. If Earth wasn’t suitable for us to live on it, we wouldn’t be standing around to ask why not. We just wouldn’t be here, and instead a species that could stand the different environment would exist in our place, and/or we’d have evolved on a planet that could support us, we’d name it Earth instead, and we’d be standing on that planet asking why it was so perfect. Stephen Hawking explains the situation as it relates to the universe well in his book The Universe in a Nutshell. The current view of physics and cosmology today is that there are in fact multiple universes. Quantum physics says that every universe that could exist does exist, at least for a brief time. Similarly to the planet idea, if this universe couldn’t support us, we wouldn’t be here to ask. Statistically it is true that, leaving everything to chance, a universe like the one we live in would be unlikely to form. But because there are so many universes, it’s guaranteed that one like it should form and that’s where we stand today.

Refutation of Darwinism: New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories

While it is true that the discovery of the Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil was unexpected, it doesn’t mean that we throw away the entire evolutionary theory. This would be akin to throwing out the Guinness Book of World Records whenever someone breaks a record because now the whole thing is junk. What we must do instead is revise it and try to update our ideas about how the story actually went. S. tchadensis currently holds the title of the oldest hominid fossil. Just because that title was help by Australophithecine species doesn’t mean the whole theory is wrong. It’s evident now that scientists have come to terms with this in realizing that the evolutionary line may not move as easily from ape to human as was once though, but instead there was more diversity in the hominid family tree. Ask any anthropologist and they’ll tell you the biggest problem facing them today is the lack of a complete fossil record, i.e. there’s a perfectly fine possibility that there are many species we just haven’t discovered yet. The old idea of a single missing link may not be correct any more, but that’s not to say we didn’t evolve from apes.

Refutation of Darwinism: Scientists Confirm the Signs of God.

Contrary to the obvious points made at the beginning of this article, science is not working to disprove religion. More specifically, evolution IS NOT a replacement for religion. While it may go towards revising the creation theories held by most religions, it does nothing to suggest that we use evolution as some kind of moral guide and throw away traditional religions. Some have tried to do this in the past to justify military expansions, colonization, suppression of womans’ rights, and more. However these people entirely misinterpreted Darwin’s original ideas to suit their own. The main thesis of the article, that all the wonders of science only go to prove the wonders of a supreme Creator, is complete interpretation. It’s interesting to note that this article seems to be in agreement with cosmological theories as a proof of God’s existence but still tries to refute evolution. They attempt to move God out of the “creation” of the universe so that religion can agree with current scientific views of the universe (which we could call “evolution” of the universe beginning with the Big Bang) and yet keep God in terms of the Biblical “creation” of mankind. I would even tend to agree with this article, as far as suggesting that we could define God as a Creator and Motivator of the universe (i.e. that he created the universe initially in such a way, or guided the universe in such a way) to lead to our own evolution. This may seem in contrast to the points I have outlined already in this posting, but I have maintained previously towards the beginning of this thread that such a definition of God would be the only one that agrees with scientific standpoint. I am sure that science can explain the how of everything in this universe, but there is no reason to favour or not favour the use of some kind of God to answer the why.

Design in the Universe: God Created the Universe from Nothing

It is refreshing to see a fundamentalist religious site like this finally working things like the Big Bang into their own understandings of the universe, although I’ve already mentioned how the authors of these articles still contradict themselves by ignoring evolutionary theories in the same way. This particular article hails the Big Bang as proof of God’s creation of the universe – proof that the universe had a beginning! I feel it is important to note that science, as it stands right now, has limits to it. There is something called the Planck Time (derived, for anyone interested, from measurable universal constants, specifically as t=sqrt(Gh/c^5) where t=Plank time, G=Gravitational constant, h=Plank’s constant, and c=speed of light) equal to about 1.35E-43 seconds. Tiny, to be sure, but nonetheless we simply cannot apply any laws of physics that we know today to times earlier than that time. So there is still no way of knowing what happened before then, although the theory we have now is that before the big bang, the universe was both infinitely large and infinitely dense (something hard to grasp and often misinterpreted). The universe as we know it was not created from nothing. Regardless, cosmologists are working on things like M-theory which could explain exactly how the big bang happened, as well as what the state of our universe was before then and the state of other universes that could have existed. This time the authors are guilty of seizing a scientific theory and hailing that it proves the existence of God simply because it fits with the ideas they already subscribe to, while at the same time they refute things like evolution because they accuse scientists of seizing it as a way to disprove the existence of God simply because it fits with ideas that they already subscribe to. Can anybody say hypocrisy? The difference is that scientists are not actually grasping to their theories of cosmology and evolution because it fits with what they’ve already decided about the universe. The Big Bang theory was in direct contrast with the long held view that the universe was infinitely old and uniform, as the article itself says. In the same token, evolution came in direct contrast to long-held views of creationism. Scientists for years didn’t believe Darwin because his theories didn’t fit well with what they thought they already knew and it wasn’t until things like Mendellian genetics and discoveries of ancestral fossils that people began to come around and re-evaluate old ideas. Yet again the authors contradict themselves and kill their own argument.

If there are specific examples you want to discuss please let me hear it, but from what I’ve seen at that website there’s nothing that can’t be logically argued against. I’m pretty sure I’ve said enough for now.

Random ? Comments (0)

Leave a Reply