The Christian men who laid the foundation of modern science firmly believed that there were natural explanations for all of the natural events — that is, the everyday, repeatable events — that we see in the world around us. However, at the same time, they firmly believed that non-repeatable, supernatural events (such as miracles) had supernatural explanations.
What has happened in the centuries since that time is that, as natural explanations came to be identified with science, atheists began to palm off their religion on unsuspecting students by disguising their atheist worldview as a natural explanation of the world around us. For example:
Since atheists deny the existence of a creator, their religion explains the existence of life by claiming that all life came from non-life. However, even though many people have been led to believe that that claim is science, the fact that it contradicts actual scientific research proves that it is religion, not science. Let me explain.
At one time it was believed
that maggots spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that
"hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660) devised an experiment,
consisting of two jars that both contained meat. One jar was open,
the other jar had a piece of cheesecloth stretched across the top.
While
maggots only appeared in the open jar, flies were actually observed
laying
maggots on the cheesecloth, thus proving that the maggots were not generated spontaneously.
However, instead of completely
rejecting the idea of spontaneous generation, a number of “scientists”
continued to believe that bacteria would spontaneously generate in
broth. In
order to test that hypothesis, Louis Pasteur (in 1859) devised an
experiment
utilizing several long-necked flasks that contained beef broth. After
the broth
was boiled, the necks on some of the flasks were heated and bent in an
s-curve.
As predicted, bacteria only infested the broth that was in
straight-necked
flasks. When it entered the flasks with curved necks, it wound up
sticking to
the side of the neck, and never reached the broth.
Although such experiments,
coupled with the invention of a dust-free box at the end of the
nineteenth-century, convinced the scientific community that life does
not come
from non-life; atheists continue to claim that life originally came
from
non-life because it is their religion, not science.
In trying to find arguments
that they can use to support their religious beliefs, atheists often
claim that
extinct animals, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, are no longer with
us
because they have evolved into something else. However, they believe
that
because that is what their religion teaches, not because it is
scientific! On
the contrary, over forty percent of the fossilized life forms that we
find in
the rocks are not extinct. And, none of the fossilized life forms that
are not
extinct are significantly different from their descendants which we
find living
in the world today. What is that, other than scientific, observable
evidence
that things are not evolving? Therefore, the very fact that atheists
refuse to
admit that there is absolutely no evidence that extinct life forms have
evolved
into something else, and stubbornly cling to the claim that they did
evolve,
proves that their beliefs are a religion, not science.
At the time of Charles
Darwin it was easy for atheists to claim that men could evolve from
lower life
forms because no one knew anything about DNA. And, for years
evolutionists
ignored the findings of Gregor Mendel, because they did not fit the
evolutionary model. Furthermore, when the scientific evidence that
change is
limited by the genetic code could no longer be ignored, instead of
admitting
that they were wrong the atheists tried to find some way around the
evidence.
In the end, they wound up claiming that evolution is the result of
favorable
mutations. However, that claim is totally unscientific, because
mutations are
the result of damage to the genetic code, and damage never improves
anything.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that mutation has, or even
could,
lead to the improvement of any living system, much less the development
of new
species. The fact that atheists stubbornly refuse to admit that,
proves that their beliefs are religion, not science.
People need to be taught how to tell the difference between atheistic religion and science. The distinction is not difficult. Atheism makes claims that have no real basis in science, or are even contrary to science, and then tries to interpret the facts to fit those claims. For example, consider the fossil known as Lucy. Lucy is clearly an ape, albeit an extinct species of ape. However, even though the fossils provide us with scientific evidence that life forms are not evolving, atheists claim that she is an ancestor of the human race. The point I am making, is that there is not one scrap of scientific evidence to support that claim. Evolutionists make it because that is what their religion teaches, not because there is any scientific support for it.
At
present, atheists like to claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
However,
here again, there is not one scrap of real science to support their
claim. On
the contrary, real science exposes that claim as ridiculous. Reptiles
and birds
have entirely different digestive systems, respiratory systems,
circulatory
systems, and reproductive systems. [What I have just said is explained more
fully by
anatomist Dr. David Menton in two lectures available on DVD. “Lucy,
She’s No
Lady”, and “Formed To Fly”.]