THE ATHEIST REJECTION OF

REASON AND SCIENCE

A Look at the Facts by

Gary Ray Branscome

Like many Christians, I went through a struggle of faith during my teenage years. Although I grew up in a Christian home, my worldview had been shaped by the public school system, and the bogus history of the world that it presents as fact. I am not talking about objective history, the kind of history based on written records, but the imaginary history fabricated by men who reject the Bible. At that time I was intimidated by their assertive presentation, and the claim that they were following reason and science. But, as I later learned, nothing could be further from the truth. They not only were not following reason or science, but, as I will show, were rejecting reason and science whenever it did not fit their agenda.

The Rejection of Reason

At present, one of the most prominent advocates of evolution is atheist professor Richard Dawkins. He claims to have the facts, but when you look at the evidence it becomes evident that he has nothing more than hot air to back up his beliefs. I am not saying that he will not cite facts, but that none of those facts support the conclusions he wants to get from them. In short he just puts his own spin on things, and pretends that there is no other credible explanation.

For example: On the first page of his book, “The Blind watchmaker” (second paragraph) he says. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Yet his book was written to deny that obvious fact.

Furthermore, he is not alone in that view. Another prominent atheist, Francis Crick, has said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (“What Mad Pursuit”, page 138.)

My question for both of them and for you is this. “If a dog, a horse, or any other animal looked at those ‘complicated things,’ would it conclude that they had been ‘designed for a purpose’? OF COURSE NOT! And, the reason that a dog, a horse, or any animal would not come to that conclusion is because it is our REASON [human reason] that tells us that those “complicated things… give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

Once that is understood, it should be obvious that, Richard, Dawkins’ book “The Blind watchmaker” was written to deny what his own reason tells him is self-evident. And, the very purpose of his book is to convince his readers that they should not believe their own reason.

In short, if living things appear to have been designed because they have been designed, then a dogmatic refusal to believe that they have been designed is a rejection of reason.

Things that Appear to Have Been Designed

When Richard Dawkins speaks of things that appear to have been designed, he is not just speaking of complete plants or animals, but of all the complicated systems within every plant, every animal, and every cell that carry out specific functions — systems such as our endocrine system, our circulatory system, our digestive system, our eyes, our ears, and our kidneys to name a few. Reason tells us that those systems could not evolve in small steps, because they would have no survival value until the entire system was functioning.

For example: What good would a mouth be without an intestine? What good would an intestine be without a stomach? What good would a stomach be without the glandular-factories that produce digestive juices? What good would all of that be without rapid replacement of the cells lining the stomach, coupled with glandular-factories that coat the stomach with a protective layer of mucous? And, what good would all of that be if the intestine could not absorb the nutrients into the blood steam? Or if the intestine was not lined with smooth muscle programmed to move the digested food through the intestine? Atheists try to get around this fact by claiming that simple digestive systems evolved into more complex systems. However, they cannot show us one such simple system, because every digestive system (no matter how simple they think it is) must be complete and functional before it can give an organism added survival value.

In his book, “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical challenge to Evolution,” Dr. Michael Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate the idea of irreducible complexity. In his words, “The simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap needs all of those parts in order to function, it is irreducibly complex,” (1996). And, just as the mousetrap will not work until all of the parts are in place, many of the complex systems in our body, and even in our cells, will not work until all of the parts are in place. For that reason, they could not have evolved in small steps, because by themselves none of the individual parts would have provided any survival advantage.

Made Up “Just-So” Stories

I recently watched a youtube video in which Richard Dawkins attempted to convince his audience that an eye could evolve. He began by suggesting that a mutation may have caused an organism to have a clear spot in its outer membrane enabling it to sense light, thus improving its ability to survive. Claiming that a later mutation may then have enabled it to sense shadowy shapes, further improving its ability to survive, followed by other mutations each one improving its sight, and thus its ability to survive. Dr. Phillip E. Johnson has likened these stories fabricated by Dawkins to the “just so” stories that Rudyard Kipling came up with; stories such as “How the Tiger Got Its Stripes,” or “How the Elephant got Its Trunk”. In contrast to such imaginary stories, there is not one scrap of real scientific evidence that mutations (which are damage to the genes) have ever produced, or could ever produce sight.

Why, reason itself tells us that such a scenario is absurd! First of all, a patch of clear cells would not automatically enable us to sense light. If you doubt what I say go into your bathroom some night, turn off the light, and point a flashlight into your mouth. Your face will light up like a Chinese lantern because light already penetrates our skin. Yet even though it penetrates our skin we do not sense that light because our skin has no mechanism for conveying that information to the brain. Secondly, even if a mutation could cause some cells to become clear, random chance would cause those clear cells to be scattered around the body like salt on a pork chop. The very fact those cells are arranged into a lens tells us that lens was designed for a purpose.

Furthermore, not only do we need a lens, there must also be a photosensitive retina for the lens to focus an image on, a code and mechanism by which the retina can convey that information to the brain, and ability on the part of the brain to accurately decode that information, reproducing a reliable image in the mind.

And, what does science say about all of this? The fossil-bearing layer commonly regarded as oldest is the Cambrian layer. That layer not only contains a great variety of complex life forms, but all the basic eye designs are found there, including the camera type eye common to all vertebrates. Furthermore, from their first appearance in the fossil record those eyes are complete and functional. There is not one scrap of evidence that those eyes ever evolved from something less complex. Dawkins seems to believe that if he can imagine something evolving, then it is reasonable to believe that it did evolve, even if his imaginary scenario is contrary to both reason and science.

The Laws of Science

In his book, “The three Pillars of Evolution Demolished”, Dr. Jerry Bergman points out that as a theory, Evolution rests on three pillars. And, like the three legs of a three legged stool, if any one of those pillars fails the entire theory falls. Those three pillars are, 1)- Origin of life without supernatural intervention; 2)- Random mutations as the source of variation; 3)- Natural selection as the mechanism on how life evolves.

Regarding the first of those pillars, at one time it was widely believed that maggots spontaneously generate in meat. In order to test that "hypothesis," Francesco Redi (in 1660) devised an experiment, consisting of jars that contained meat. Some were open, some closed, and some had cloth across the top. While maggots only appeared in open jars, flies were actually observed laying maggots on the cloth, 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. As a result, by the end of the nineteenth century, such experiments, coupled with the invention of a dust-free box, had convinced the scientific community that life does not come from non-life. In fact the evidence that life comes only from preexisting life is so solid that it is regarded as a law of science, “The Law of Biogenesis”. Evolutionists simply ignore the scientific evidence because it does not fit their ideas. In fact, every time some speaker or author equates the possibility of liquid water on other planets with the presence of life on those planets, they are ignoring the evidence.

Because Richard Dawkins knows that life only comes from preexisting life, when he was interviewed for the movie, “Expelled,” he suggested that life may have been seeded onto Earth by travelers from outer space. In other words, he prefers science fiction to real science. The same holds true for Bill Ney, who, in his debate with Ken Ham, equated the presence of water with the presence of life.

When it comes to the second of those pillars, Darwin assumed that the minor variation we see from one generation to the next could, given enough time, change one life form into an entirely different life form. However, science has rejected that myth. If you remember the experiments carried out by Gregor Mendel, in which he crossed green peas with yellow peas, wrinkled peas with smooth peas, and tall peas with short peas. His experiments proved that variation was limited to what characteristics are in the genes to begin with. Evolutionists try to get around that fact by claiming that mutations could cause something entirely different. However, as we now know, mutations are caused by damage to the genes, and damage can never add more information to the genome.

As to the third pillar of evolution: “Natural Selection” cannot produce anything because it can only select from what is already there. In short, the fittest must be there to begin with before it can be selected. And, “No mindless, random chance process is ever going to produce DNA with information in it,” (Dr. Jobe Martin, from a TV appearance).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

In everyday life the natural direction of things is from order to disorder, and if we want anything nice it takes constant effort. Left to itself, our house would decay and fall apart. The same holds true for everything in our house, including our own bodies. Even the stones in our house will chip and crack. Therefore, if you had a fish, one that was perfectly good a moment ago but just died, and you laid it in shallow water on the side of a warm little pond; you know perfectly well what would happen. If that fish was not eaten by something, it would decay and fall apart. And, once it decayed, it would be contrary to reason for us to think that the chemicals that fish was made of might come back together, organize themselves into a fish, and lie there on the side of that pond until a chance lightning strike brought the fish back to life. Yet that is exactly how Darwin believed that life originated. Do not misunderstand me! I am not saying that he believed that a dead fish came to life! But it is just as silly to believe that the chemicals needed to make a single celled organism could come together and organize themselves into all of the parts needed to make a cell, as it is to believe that the chemicals needed to make a fish could come together, rather than decaying and falling apart. Darwin assumed that a single cell was very simple, but we now know that every single cell is more complex than the entire human body was thought to be in Darwin’s day.

Conclusion

Christians should never be intimidated by evolutionists. We have the facts, they have fantasy. Because the Bible was written by the same God who gave us our reason and set the “laws of science” in motion, the opinions of men may contradict the Word of God, but the facts never do.