Their unbelief is a belief!

I’ve said many times that atheists play word games.  Specifically, they like to redefine terms in their favor.  Evolution, for example, doesn’t mean what most people think it means - “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”   No.  They say it means, “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”  They get really upset when you don’t use the same definitions as they do, like they’re the Word Czars or something.  

One word they have consistently redefined is atheist.  Most people define an atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God or someone who believes there is no God.  Am I right?  However, just like the word evolution, atheists get in a huff when you don’t define atheist the same way they do.  They claim an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God.  In other words, they say they’re not trying to make any claim about the existence of God; they’re just expressing their lack of belief in Him.  Hmmm.  Something about that doesn’t sound right.

First, there’s already a word to describe when people are unsure about the existence of God; it’s called agnosticism.  How is the atheists’ twisted definition of atheism substantially different from agnosticism?  There must be a reason they prefer using such a vague definition rather than adopting the already existing term.  I’ve asked many and they usually try to draw the distinction that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, while they simply lack a belief that He exists.  It sounds like a case of splitting hairs.  

When people resort to equivocating over the meanings of words, they begin to open themselves up to contradiction.  Do they know God doesn’t exist?  Do they only think He doesn’t exist?  Do they admit He might exist?  Why do they object when people say He does exist?  You can see the difficulty with their position.  They want to attack theism without having to defend their position.

Frank Turek has used this analogy to expose the weakness of the modern definition of atheism: There are two detectives investigating a murder.  There are fingerprints, DNA, and a murder weapon that all point to one suspect.  Detective A is certain the suspect is guilty.  Detective B looks at the same facts and says he doesn’t believe the suspect is guilty.  So Detective A asks, “Then what about the gun, the blood, the fingerprints, and all the other evidence?  How do you explain all that?”  Detective B only replies, “I don’t have to explain it.  I just don’t believe it’s him.”  

I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but do you see the comparison?  You can show an atheist all the evidence we have for God: we can discuss the historical certainty of Jesus, we can point to the ontological necessity of a supernatural First Cause, we can appeal to the existence of absolute morality, and the atheist can just sit cross armed saying, “That’s not enough.”  He offers no rebuttal, he doesn’t concede an inch, he simply just doesn’t believe.  In the case of the detectives, there is a dead body and there is evidence that points to one suspect; why should we not consider what is possibly the most likely explanation?  Likewise, why should we deny the plausible explanation that God created everything and default to the incredible belief that nothing created everything?

Psalm 19:1 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  When I look at the starry night and see the grandeur of the universe, I consider its complexity, design, and beauty.  Knowing that God created it doesn’t end scientific inquiry; rather it makes me wonder more.  It tells me something about God.  I understand the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition.  God is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover that Aristotle argued must exist.  He must be greater than all burning stars.  He must be eternal and timeless, to have created time.  He must be omniscient and personal, to have created the mind and consciousness.  Knowing God exists helps me to make sense of the universe.

Everyone has a worldview.  There is a method by which we see the world and make sense of it.  For someone to deny that God is behind the universe, he must necessarily believe that nature is all there is.  They may claim they don’t believe God created everything, but they don’t have any alternative explanation.  They must necessarily believe in some other “undivine” creator.  They may claim God isn’t the moral Lawgiver, but they must have some basis to believe something is right or wrong.  They acknowledge how things are but will not consider why they are.  When they do consider how and why anything exists, they intentionally ignore what could be the most likely explanation. 

The problem for the atheists is their disbelief is actually their belief.   They pretend to be blank slates looking at the evidence but are committed to naturalism.  They somehow think it’s more intellectual to assume nothing created everything than God having created everything.  

In closing, read these telling words of Richard Lewontin:

Evolutionists ... 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.

Lies evolutionists tell: Abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses at the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.  One lie I’ve heard many, many times is that abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation.  

Once upon a time, people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation.  It’s the idea that life could spring up from non-living matter.  They believed, for example, that maggots would spontaneously form in rotting meat.  Over time, however, with much experimentation and observation, it was discovered that every suspected example of spontaneous generation could be attributed to observable causes.  In the case of maggots, they determined the cause was flies laying eggs on the meat.  

Eventually, the spontaneous generation of “complex” animals was disproved.  However, the belief that it could still happen in “simple” creatures like single-celled organisms.  If you put a jar of clean water in the sun, for example, after a while, the water would begin to cloud.  If you examined the water under the primitive microscopes available at that time, they could see the water was teeming with bacteria.  They believed these cells were merely gelatinous blobs formed spontaneously by a fortunate arrangement of chemicals already present in the water. 

Louis Pasteur  was a chemist, biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin.  He didn’t believe life could arise purely by chance so he devised an experiment to test what was happening.  He discovered that in sterilized, sealed flasks, bacteria would not grow.  If the flasks were left open, bacteria would begin to grow.  So he proved the bacteria was entering the flask from outside and not forming spontaneously in the water.  This was the discovery that led to the process we now call pasteurization and was the final blow to spontaneous generation.  It was replaced by the law of biogenesis - life only comes from life.

This poses a problem for evolutionists.  If life only comes from life, where did the supposed first living cell come from?  They have to believe - somehow and somewhere - that it rose from non-living matter.  In other words, they still believe in spontaneous generation!  I’ve often teased them by saying they’re asking people to believe in a theory that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting!!  [joke copyrighted by RKBentley © if you want use it, send me a quarter]

Of course, they claim to not believe in spontaneous generation; instead, they call it abiogenesis.  So what is the difference?  That’s a good question.  I asked Chat GPT to define ‘spontaneous generation.’  Here’s what it said:

Spontaneous generation is an old scientific idea that living organisms could arise from nonliving matter without any parent organisms.  

It went on to talk about the meat/maggots example, the Pasteur experiments, and the Law of Biogenesis.  It concluded its response with these words:

In short

• Spontaneous generation  = life comes from nonliving matter

• Modern science = life comes from preexisting life

OK, that seems straight forward.  It’s pretty much the same thing I’d already understood.   Then I asked it to define ‘abiogenesis’ and here’s what it said:

Abiogenesis is the scientific concept that life arose naturally from non-living matter on early Earth - without any pre-existing life.

Do you see what I see?  These definitions are essentially the same thing - life arose from non-life, except spontaneous generation says it doesn’t happen and abiogenesis says it does!  

Because Chat GPT’s responses seemed contradictory, I asked a less direct question.  I asked, “What do you call the process by which life rises from non-living matter?”  Here’s the response:

The process you’re referring to is called Abiogenesis.

What it means

Abiogenesis is the scientific idea that life arose from nonliving chemical substances - likely on earth Earth billions of years ago.

Key distinction

It’s important not to confuse this with spontaneous generation:

• Abiogenesis -> A gradual, natural process over long periods involving chemistry (accepted area of scientific research)

• Spontaneous generation -> life appearing suddenly and regularly from nonliving matter (now disproven)

Ah, I get it.  Abiogenesis has the magic ingredient: time!!  I mean, life can’t just spring up like maggots from rotting meat, that’s crazy.  But if you wait billions of years, a rock can become alive.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  Plus, abiogenesis involves chemistry, you see, and that’s scientific - so there you go.  //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

To be fair, Chat GPT did conclude with this final distinction:

Simple way to think about it

• Abiogenesis = how the first life ever began

• Biogenesis = how life continues today (life comes from life)

Yet even this doesn’t hold any water.  First, if abiogenesis was a singular event, then it is disqualified from scientific investigation.  It would be like trying to scientifically observe the reign of Julias Caesar - it’s something that happened in the past and we weren’t there to see it.  If it never happens again, how could we ever observe how it happened?  And even if we somehow create life in a lab, there’s no way to say that is how it happened in the past!

But there’s an even deeper problem with this idea, namely, who’s to say that it doesn’t happen any more?  They’re saying only the first life formed by abiogenesis, because if it happened again, that would be spontaneous generation.  It’s kind of like the exotic theories atheists invoke to explain the origin of everything from nothing.  How can anyone say that some “miraculous” thing happened naturally in the past but it doesn’t happen any more?  If life arose from chemicals once, why necessarily doesn’t it keep happening?  If the universe poofed out of nothing, why can’t matter/energy poof into existence now?  It sounds like a clever way to say, “An incredible thing happened, it wasn’t a miracle, we don’t have to prove anything, and it’s still scientific.” 

In conclusion I’ll say, my opinion hasn’t changed.  Abiogenesis is Spontaneous Generation 2.0.  It’s a god-of-the-gaps argument being used by unbelievers to plug a big hole in their worldview.  We’ve known for more than a century that life doesn’t rise naturally from chemicals but they still cling with faith-like determination to the idea that it must have happened. 

So now they're experts in religion as well?

There's an editorial on Nature called, “Dealing with design” that deals with the “problem” of students who believe in intelligent design. I know it’s an older article but it contains some of the same things I continue to hear so I believe it’s still relevant.  I've excerpted a couple of points from the piece. Quotes are in blue and are italicized.

Scientists tend to tune out when they hear the words 'intelligent design.

That's rather telling, don't you think? The first instinct of scientists when they hear the words “intelligent design” is usually to just tune them out. Shouldn't they want to explore the idea? Shouldn't they want to test the theories? Where is their scientific curiosity? No, they just tune out.

... [M]any of the students taught in introductory biology classes hold religious beliefs that conflict, at least on the face of things, with Darwin's framework. Professors rarely address the conflicts between faith and science in lectures, and students are drawn to intelligent design as a way of reconciling their beliefs with their interest in science. In doing so, they are helping it to gain a small, but firm, foothold on campuses around the country.

If I'm reading this correctly, Nature is attributing the rise of intelligent design on college campuses to the lack of biology professors addressing the (alleged) conflicts between faith and science. Maybe they're right, but I still haven't seen a problem. I merely detect a sense of alarm among biology professors that intelligent design is gaining traction.

This is bad news for researchers. Unlike 'creation science', which uses the Bible as its guide, intelligent design tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.

Still again, I don't see a problem. Yet Nature says this is “bad news” for researchers. As a matter of fact, their alarm only seems to be that proponents of intelligent design “[try] to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature.” What's so alarming about that? I distinctly remember being asked about umpteen million times for evidence for my theory or for God. When there are people actually using scientific methods to find evidence for design, the evolutionists go into a tizzy.

This approach makes it less theologically heavy-handed than its predecessor, [young earth creationism]  but it also poses a threat to the very core of scientific reason. Most contemporary researchers believe that it is better to keep science and theology firmly separated.

Oh, I see now. It's because they never really wanted to find evidence for God. They don't want to see evidence for design. They only want to “keep science and theology firmly separated.” We see again the fundamental tenet of science that everything must have a natural explanation.  Could someone please give me a “scientific reason” why it should be the goal of science to separate itself from religion? Anyone? I didn't think so. It's a philosophical premise – not a scientific one.

Well, I can see their concern but what are they going to do about it? One idea might be to challenge the scientific theories of intelligent design in rigorous scientific debate. No. They don't like that idea. Look what Nature says in the next paragraph:

Such events tend to be well attended, but don't change many minds. Furthermore, ill-prepared scientific lectures can sometimes lack the superficial impact of design advocates' carefully crafted talking points.

I've seen many evolution/creation debates and the scientists are usually thoroughly trashed by the creationists. Exit polls after these debates usually show that if anyone's mind was changed, it tends to be toward creation. Evolutionists have been embarrassed in these types of debates so many times they always discourage other scientists away from future debates.

So what advice does Nature give to frustrated professors?

Scientists would do better to offer some constructive thoughts of their own. For religious scientists, this may involve taking the time to talk to students about how they personally reconcile their beliefs with their research. Secular researchers should talk to others in order to understand how faiths have come to terms with science. All scientists whose classes are faced with such concerns should familiarize themselves with some basic arguments as to why evolution, cosmology and geology are not competing with religion. When they walk into the lecture hall, they should be prepared to talk about what science can and cannot do, and how it fits in with different religious beliefs.

There it is. Read it for yourself. They're not just "experts" in science; now they want to be experts in Christianity! The solution suggested by Nature is that professors prepare themselves to explain how science fits in with different religious beliefs. What do you think that means? Do you think that means professors should compromise on certain scientific theories to make them more palatable to a conservative Christian? You know it doesn't. It means they are practicing arguments that might convince students to compromise on their religious beliefs and make them conform better with the scientific theory.

Make no mistake, to evolutionists, “reconciling science and religion” always means compromising on the religion!

Design by “poofery”

Did the creation create itself?

I usually avoid commenting on social media but I still belong to several Fake Book groups where Christians/creationists debate atheists/evolutionists.  I do this primarily to hear what unbelievers are saying and to get inspiration for my blog. 

Recently, one unbeliever made this comment:

EVERYBODY Believes that Intelligent Order, Design and Fine Tuning Can Exist WITHOUT the Need of a Creator.

Please excuse the arbitrary capitalization and the lack of the serial comma, I posted exactly what was said so that I can’t be accused of misrepresenting the point.  This person is saying that order and design can exist without a creator.  

Since I seldom hear any original thoughts from atheists/evolutionists, I knew I’d already heard this before.  I made a brief comment and linked to a post I’d made some time ago, namely that Design is Obvious and how design typically suggests there is a designer.   Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, where he said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.”

I used the old joke about the chicken crossing the road to make a point.  It's been my experience that the most obvious answer to nearly any question is usually the correct one.  The first time people hear the chicken riddle, they usually search for some deep meaning or clever answer yet completely overlook the obvious answer – to get to the other side.  So why does everything look designed?  Maybe it’s because it is designed!!  

Evolutionists go to great lengths to explain away design but the more they explain, the more they prove my point. They would not put in such effort if they didn't grasp the clear implication of design is that there is a Designer. It's almost funny to see how they reject the most reasonable answer for such an unlikely one. It's like they're saying, “No! The chicken did not want to get to the other side!'

Anyway, the Fake Book poster replied to my comments with the following argument:

If everything that looks designed is designed, that tells us that God is designed and created OR if God is not designed and created then no, not everything that looks designed is designed.

You may see right away that his argument suffered from a first cause dilemma.  If God were created, then who created God?  Then who created that creator?  And then who created that creator?  You can see where this is going. This is what is known as an infinite regress; it's a logical fallacy where a speaker projects a causal chain of events backward without any definite point that starts the chain.  

Aristotle said there must be a “first cause” or what he described as “The unmoved mover.”  In our case, we may call Him the Ultimate Designer.  Pretend, for a moment, that you're walking through a forest and you happen upon a log cabin. It's crude and has only a dirt floor. It has no electricity, plumbing, or glass windows. It's just basically logs, notched and stacked, with openings cut out for the door and windows. There's not a stick of furniture inside nor any other sign of anyone having lived in it recently. What questions might you ask yourself? I would think your first thoughts would be, I wonder who built this? Does someone live here? Where is he now?

I'm fairly certain no one would ask, “That's incredible! I wonder how these logs fell into the shape of a cabin?”

You see, logs organized into the shape of a cabin show design. Sections having been cut out to allow light and access show purpose. Design and purpose are the characteristics of created things and created things are the proof of a creator. The cabin obviously had a creator. Withholding judgment about the existence of a builder of the cabin is not the sign of a rational, thinking person. It's the stubborn refusal of a fool to acknowledge the obvious!

Dawkins said above that complexity and design “cries out for an explanation.”  But what is there to explain?  Even a crude cabin is proof of a creator.  What needs explaining is how complexity and design could come about without a creator!

After having said all this, I thought the case was closed.  A supernatural, first cause is the only thing that makes any sense when considering the origin of everything.  Like the foolish man in Matthew 7:24-27, any worldview that is not founded upon Christ, is built upon sand.  It cannot stand up to scrutiny.  But rather than try to rebut anything I’d said, this Fakebook poster decided to declare victory and make the following, outrageous claim:

The uncreated first cause proves that a creator is unneeded.  Once we have established that existence without creation, an intelligent mind without an intelligent creator and a consciousness without a creator can all exist, what reason is there to conclude that there is only one example of such things?

Unbelievers are in denial about the religious nature of their beliefs about origins. They are trying to posit a creator with similar attributes that we normally associate with God. In other words, they want us to believe there is a supernatural, eternal, uncaused cause for the universe – but it's still not God! It's just something like God. The skeptics are invoking a god-like non-god to explain the same things Christians credit to God.

I've said before that unbelievers in God are believers in poofism. There was nothing then, POOF, there was everything. Time, space, matter, and design just poofed into existence. They're essentially saying the creation created itself. They don't know what caused it to happen but they're sure it wasn't God. //RKBentley scratches his head//

I don't believe in God because it sort of makes sense. I believe in God because that's the only thing that makes sense. Everything we know about the universe confirms over and over there is a supernatural cause behind it. Deep down, skeptics tacitly admit this too. They just stubbornly deny Elohim is the Creator.  The god of atheism is a capricious, clumsy, invisible god that is indistinguishable from dumb luck. They seek to rob God of His glory by worshipping the undivine god of evolution. How sad.

St Patrick's Breastplate

I arise today 

Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,

Through belief in the Threeness,

Through confession of the Oneness

of the Creator of creation.

I arise today

Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.

I arise today

Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.

I arise today, 

Through the strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.

I arise today, through

God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.

I summon today

All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.

Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.