Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
Atheists have no belief in a god or religion, and they rely on evolutionary science for their arguments ... Thus making Atheism in effect, the
religion of evolutionary science?
I think atheism places its faith in Nature, it rejects religion and prefers to explain Nature as 'self-forming' whereas those who believe in God
explain Nature as formed by a 'supernatural force' - but they are more alike than they concede. For example, the birth of a baby from conception
through gestation until the baby's first cry demonstrates the miraculous work of God for the faithful and demonstrates the wonder and coherence of
Nature for the secular - both sides are satisfied. I think there is a fallacy that atheists deny the wonder and beauty of life. Many people are unable
to accept the biblical account of creation because it seems to lack logic. Modern man has outgrown scripture. His questions are profound and require
But there is a fallacy that science denies God or even that it can explain Nature/Life without God (by God I mean a supernatural force that has
designed the universe and life within it). Evolutionary science does not support an atheist perspective - it has nothing to say about God or religion.
Certainly there are proponents who have become evangelical in their rants against religion (Dawkins, Dennett ..) but that's their own personal views
- its not science - most certainly not Darwin.
Darwin did something absolutely amazing - he showed that all life on Earth is connected - both past (fossils) and present. He showed that life on
Earth is on a forward progressive path of improvement towards greater complexity, diversity and adaptability. He also showed that we are profoundly
connected to Nature. No one had done that before. That is his genius.
But Darwin's essential tenet - that life started with a very simple construct and became more complex over time - was falsified in 1953 with the
discovery of the DNA structure. In one blinding moment we glimpsed the complexity of the cell and since then we've been like 17th century explorers
entering at a new and wondrous world. Now we realise that incredible complexity in code is required for the first signs of life to occur. Like the
robot Asimo - it does very simple actions (by human standards) of walking, climbing stairs, and rudimentary running but the amount of ingenious code
that is required for these few actions is immense - so too with life. The simplest life forms require hundreds of thousands of interconnected working
components. Organisms may have appeared simple at the beginning of life on Earth but this belies the mad complexity that enables life.
And I should point out that we still don't know what life is - we can isolate a single cell in a Petri dish then pierce the skin so all the cell's
contents spill out. We have everything that is required for life in the dish (supposedly) yet we cannot put it back together again - cannot give it
Evolutionary science has now morphed into something called neo-Darwinism, but it has nothing to do with Darwin and simply trades on his good name.
Darwin spoke of natural selection and arbitrary mutation, but all of that is gone - gone is the concept of natural selection, and mutation has changed
into 'arbitrary chemical collisions'. It has become fantasy and still it is no closer to explaining the mathematical perfection and precision of
I'm sorry that I've gone off on a bit of a rant myself, but it does science a great disservice to say that it supports an atheistic perspective.
This position limits the investigation of our evolutionary past, because it forces a 'bottom up' methodology of inquiry. If we say that there is no
'reason to the rhyme of life', that our past is only a collection of physical arbitrary processes then we'll never look for the truth. Nature works
through systems and processes, and I truly believe evolution is another process - a system of development like other systems found in Nature. It is
time to connect the dots the way Nature works. Look around you, Nature makes sense, so too should our evolutionary past.
We need to take a systems approach and connect the patterns and regularities we see in our fossil record. We presently explain the reoccurring jumps
in evolutionary biological improvement (dinosaur to mammal for example) as being the result of mass extinction events. But that overlooks how the
biology on Earth improved, and it stops us investigating what those mechanisms could be. We have recorded 6 huge genetic jumps, yet everyone is
looking at meteor strikes, when that explains nothing.
It's a fallacy to say science is atheist, molecular biology uses engineering principles to investigate the cell - we need to do the same to
investigate our evolutionary past. Atheism is a belief system. Science is a system for studying the operation of Nature in the observable Universe.
The 2 are very different