Sam Weaver
The atheistic religion and modern "science," Part II b
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Sam Weaver
October 27, 2020

[NOTE: I am deeply saddened upon hearing about the loss of Lloyd Marcus. Profound Agape and prayers to Mary and to all of Lloyd’s family. He will be ruefully missed until we meet again on the other side of the Jordan.]

Originally (some six years ago), the theme and thesis of Part II of this series was meant to be “The Tyranny of Consensus.” I also wanted to discuss the Atheistic ethic, which weaves in seamlessly with the theme and thesis (1), but all of that must be deferred to Part III. Meanwhile, I am compelled to use this precious space to make clarifications to Part I, and to answer some of my critics.

The Laws of Nature

In Part I of this series, I wrote, “The problems with the Atheistic explanation of origins are far too numerous to mention here,” and “Just three of many reasons why the Atheistic explanation of origins cannot be considered scientific are briefly outlined above.” In a nutshell, the Atheistic (Naturalistic) explanation of origins (See “Explanation of Origins” below) violates a host of well-established laws of nature.

At this point, you may or may not be wondering, “Who, or what, defines, ordains and/or establishes (the) laws of nature?” The true Christian (modern conservative/classical liberal) would emphatically answer, “Our Lord and Savior; the Creator of the Universe and the Author of Law!” The devout Atheist (Naturalist; “Progressive” /modern liberal) may hem and haw a bit, yet would all but certainly at some point reply, “Science;” meaning a supposed consensus (2) of today’s (“elite,” “Progressive”) scientists/ “experts.” (3) [Note: I have read writings from at least two academicians/scientists/ “experts” fairly recently claiming that we should absolutely forsake any concept of “law” in regards to science. More on that in Part III.]

Any rational, professional and proficient scientist would state that “well-established laws of nature” prevail via the scientific method. Someone (e.g., Pythagoras, Archimedes, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Pasteur, Einstein, etc., etc.) proposes a postulate (hypothesis). If this hypothesis could, theoretically, be falsified, yet withstands repeated, ongoing tests over time and makes accurate predictions, then it becomes a well-established law (of nature/science).

Let’s take a very brief look at just four well-established laws of nature that the Atheistic (naturalistic) explanation of origins violates.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

First proposed by Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and later expanded by Albert Einstein (1879-1955), the First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be naturally (i.e., by any means other than supernaturally) either created or destroyed. How did nothing, even some 13.7 billion years ago, either create or result in something? This is a question that Atheists (Naturalists), try as they may, simply cannot answer.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems in the universe tend toward disorder and decay (entropy). According to Neo-Darwinists (4), beneficial mutations, over time, generate new genetic material, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, appendages and, thus, new species and ever higher life forms. This is not only a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; it is an outright lie. In ALL of observed nature, with every mutation—EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of an observed and documented case of “natural selection!” —a loss (or, at best, a neutrality) of genetic information has occurred (5). [See also “The Law of Cause and Effect” below.]

I received a reply to an article on this venue many years ago asserting that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply only to closed systems (6). “We are in an open system,” the correspondent said. [Paraphrasing:] “The sun supplies the surplus energy needed to generate new species and to catalyze, with the aid of natural selection, higher life forms.” Obviously, the sun provides the physical energy that is both necessary and vital to all life on this Earth. But can the sun, alone—or even in conjunction with the Earth and its atmosphere, provide and encode the gigabytes of information contained within the DNA of every cell of every living thing that exists on this Earth? Can the sun, even with the assistance of Darwin’s random, non-intelligent, yet somehow purposeful “natural selection” develop new amino acids, proteins, DNA/RNA, genes, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, bodies and systems? [See “Miller/Urey Experiment” below.] With energy only from the sun (along with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and nutrients from the Earth), an acorn grows into a mighty oak tree. This would not happen, however, if the billions of bytes of information contained within every cell of that acorn was not previously there to make it so. Who, or what, provided this initial, inherent, indispensable information?

The SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) program has, over decades, spent billions of American (and foreign) taxpayer dollars using sophisticated radio telescopes looking for one small, coherent strand of information to prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Meanwhile, micro-biologists use state-of-the-art microscopes to discover not only gigabytes—if not terabytes—of information within a single human cell, but also intricately designed and complex molecular machines and processes at work. Intelligent design? “NO!! Just random chance and happenstance!” Blind faith!

The Law of Biogenesis

Perhaps first hypothesized (in relatively modern times) by Francesco Redi (1626-1697), and tested by Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799), the Law of Biogenesis was (is) said by many to have been proved by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). Technically, it did not become a recognized, established law of nature until after the work of Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) and others. The Law of Biogenesis states that life can only arise from pre-existing living matter, and cannot arise spontaneously from non-living matter. This is a huge problem for Atheists/Naturalists, who now ludicrously describe it as a “waning principle.” Why? Because of their BLIND FAITH in Naturalism, and an irrational—albeit ubiquitous among secular scientists—hope for some evidence of an observable (much less, provable) instance of abiogenesis!

The Law of Cause and Effect

Perhaps the most certain, basic, universal and well-established natural law known to man is the Law of Cause and Effect. Science (defined as a search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe and all of its principles, laws, entities and systems) is worthless and impossible without this concept. How could any hypothesis be tested or falsified, much less proven or debunked, without this concept/law? The Law of Cause and Effect states that every cause has an equal or greater effect and that no effect can be greater than its cause. How can Neo-Darwinists/Naturalists/Atheists explain, let alone, justify their belief that matter arose from nothing, that matter which arose from nothing became molecules which, over time, became a living cell, which, eventually, became a human being via purely natural, random circumstances/occurrences? Please perform a simple Google (or other) search of “Law of Cause and Effect.” You will quickly see 1) a plethora of “conventional wisdom” (see here and here) definitions, explanations and history of the Law of Cause and Effect, and 2) that Google (and, in fact, ALL of “Big Tech”) provides ONLY the Naturalistic (conventional wisdom) definitions, explanations and history of this crucial Law of Nature and excludes—CENSORS!—the TRUE (Judeo-Christian) definitions, explanations and history! [More on this in Part III.]

Answering my critics

“BICEP2 discovers B-Mode Polarization, sign of Gravitational Waves”

Ironically, on the day (18 March 2014) Part I of this series was published, the BICEP2 “discovery” hit the world press. Headlines everywhere exclaimed: “Big Bang theory proven!” One of the very first critics of that article thought he was really hitting me hard with this. Some 17 times in God’s Word, the Bible, it is stated that God stretches (or stretched) out the heavens. (See, for some examples, Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12 and 51:15; Psalms 104:2 and Zechariah 12:1.) Even a rudimentary understanding of Einstein’s general theory of relativity would indicate that any stretching out of the heavens would necessarily result in red-shifts, B-Mode polarizations (cosmic microwave background [cosmic background radiation], or CMB) and gravitational waves. Long story short, the BICEP2 “discovery” has been well-nigh totally debunked. See, for one small example, here.

Miller/Urey Experiment

In Part I of this series, I stated, “Stanley Miller and Harold Urey may or may not have generated amino acids under supposed ‘early Earth-like’ conditions in a laboratory, but they most certainly did not generate life!” I could—and should—have worded this much better. Yes, amino acids were generated. However, Miller assumed a reducing (anoxic, or – oxygen-deprived) early Earth atmosphere. His rigged experiment would not have been successful if oxygen were present. We now know for sure that oxygen was abundant when the first life on Earth was formed. How do we know this for certain? Analyses of the “oldest” rocks and signs of oxygen found within them, for example, provide evidence. The proof, however, is in this fact: Without oxygen, there can be no ozone. Even factoring in a substantially stronger magnetic field in the ancient past (more on this in a later article), the presence of ozone is essential in the shielding of living cells (in fact, of any organic matter) from destructive—DEADLY—ultraviolet (especially UVB) radiation from the sun. Stanley Miller’s amino acids would have been zapped out of existence by the sun’s ultraviolet rays before they even could have formed in a reducing atmosphere. Moreover, the Urey/Miller experiment produced only a fraction of the amino acids necessary for life, and, in fact, produced by-products that would have been toxic to those few amino acids generated. Never mind both the failure to produce nucleotides, sugars (e.g., ribose and deoxyribose), lipids, etc.; and the lack of any evidence or explanation for how those things could have coalesced into a living cell before being destroyed by UVB radiation, water (the universal solvent), or by the aforementioned toxic by-products. No one has even attempted to refute my claim that “they (Miller/Urey) most certainly did not generate life!” I wonder why?

I said, “To this day, the ‘Urey-Miller’ experiment has never been replicated.” I regret having made that assertion, especially on this esteemed website. It is, indeed, a false statement. I apologize and accept full responsibility and accountability for that egregious error.

Jeffrey Bada, a devoted student of Miller, did replicate the experiment with similar results. Like Miller, Bada falsely assumed a reducing atmosphere. Like Miller, Bada simulated lighting strikes with lite charges of electricity. (Even most morons know that a lightning strike [instantly inducing more than 15,000 degrees Fahrenheit] would fry amino acids instantaneously.) Like Miller, Bada used a trap to collect the amino acids. Would random nature have had either the foresight or the intelligence to have conceived this sanctuary? I could go on and on—including more detailed discussions ranging from toxic by-products versus essential organic compounds and, further, to a thorough, technical deliberation regarding chirality. It would not be good for my critics.

These critics cannot (and have not attempted to) refute this statement of mine: “Yet, it (the Urey-Miller/Bada experiment) is cited in textbooks even today as ‘evidence’ that life can arise via (purely natural) electro/chemical processes.” (Parentheses added.) True science—observation and relentless testing—over a century now has provided not a single shred of evidence that life can arise via any natural process. Amino acids can be generated in a laboratory, with human intelligence guiding the way, but, even with human intelligence, the generation of life by any method or means other than supernaturally only happens within the imaginations of great authors and artists such as Mary Shelly.

Explanation of Origins

More than one person ridiculed me for what they considered my false and arbitrary definition of religion in Part I of this series. They seemed most infuriated by the notion that any (and every) religion has an explanation of origins; or, perhaps, that an explanation of origins necessarily has anything to do with religion. If they would free themselves of their irrational hatred of God (Who they claim does not exist!), and would think critically and objectively for several moments, they would soon realize several things. First, they would ascertain the fact that every sane and rational human being has a religion. Second, they would understand that a person’s religion is the essence—the essentiality—of his/her worldview philosophy (i.e., ideology). Third, they would grasp the absolute reality that an explanation of origins is a fundamental aspect of their religion, and, thus, of their worldview/ideology. Eventually, they would resolutely discover that the most devout and pious Jew, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, etc., are not the least more religious, or dogmatic, than are they. The concept of secularism is an artificial fallacy, much like utopianism, socialism, communism or fascism. It rejects God, Rule of Law and Liberty; and embraces godlessness, rule of man and either anarchy or tyranny (totalitarianism). Every rational human being has a religion, and every religion (including Atheism and Naturalism) has an explanation of origins (7). Anyone who believes that he has no religion, and that an explanation of origins is not a key part of any religion, and, thus a fundamental aspect of his worldview philosophy, either lacks critical thinking skills or has been meticulously trained not to use them—in a government-controlled, union-run public school/college/university.

DNA/Argumentum ad Verecundiam

My most vocal and influential critic (8) took special umbrage with my statement, “Yet it was not until after the mid-1950's, with the work of Watson and Crick, that the highly intricate and inscrutably complex structure, function, purpose and processes of DNA even began to be understood and appreciated.” Ironically, I distinctly recall looking up the word “inscrutable,” and pondering for a while whether the word “inscrutably” was the correct word (adjective; sense 2) in this context. This critic said [paraphrasing]: “Does he (meaning me, the author of the article he is rebutting) not understand the meaning of the word ‘inscrutably?’ Doesn’t he know that scientists today have DNA all figured out, or, at least, can comprehend it all quite soon?” At best, this critic is committing the logical fallacy of “Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).” “Scientists know, you don’t!” At worst, he is ignorant of the fact that microbiologists are constantly discovering new molecular devices (i.e., biological nanomachines such as ATP synthase, DNA polymerases and so on), processes and systems that they cannot even begin to explain or comprehend—at least not from a purely Naturalistic perspective. Even the most intelligent, knowledgeable and competent scientists are fallible human beings. Even they are not remotely capable of entirely cognizing the consummate structure, function, purpose AND processes of DNA. My critics would very likely understand and appreciate these facts were they not blinded by their worldview—a worldview formed by government/union-controlled academe and gelled by Orwellian MSM, “popular culture,” Hollywood and the “Deep State.”

Cytoplasm/Strawman Argument

In Part I of this series, I wrote:

    “As mentioned previously, there are three main components of every cell: 1) the cell wall (or membrane), 2) for lack of a better term, the central processing unit [In eukaryotic cells, this is called the (DNA-containing) nucleus. In prokaryotic cells (i.e., bacteria) (9), it is basically a DNA-containing region of the interior of the cell.] and 3) the cytoplasm (containing organelles vital to the function of the cell).”

From this statement, my most vocal and influential critic set up a strawman argument (another logical fallacy). He apparently assumed things that he thought I believed about cytoplasm, and then told his audience why I was wrong to believe those things—which I did not believe in the first place. As I recall, this was only one of several strawman arguments in his rebuttal.

Ad hominem attacks

Most, if not all of my critics—at least those with an audience—employ the logical fallacy of ad hominem. They either appeal to their readers’ emotions and prejudices, or they attack my character and intentions rather than actually try to refute my assertions. Despite decades of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation from the government/union-run schools & universities, from an indoctrinated press/media, and, recently, from Big Tech, the American people are NOT stupid! Sadly, my critics and many of their readers have fallen for the Big Lie. We the People of the United States of America will not fall for the Lie or for your logical fallacies! We the People of the United States of America cherish Liberty and abhor tyranny! We the People of the United States of America revere the Truth. The Truth is the Word and the Will of our Creator, Redeemer (sense 2, case d; See also, here) and Author of Law.

War

I will end this article with two brief notes—one to my many dearly beloved and deeply appreciated Christian/Jewish readers (Special shout out to Darlene!), and another to my treasured detractors, who keep me thinking and on my guard.

To my Christian brothers and sisters

Please read and ponder, with guidance from the Holy Spirit, the epistle of Paul to the Ephesians; especially here. Or, if you prefer, here.

Every human being on this Earth was, is and will be created (formed, made) in the image of God. No matter how vile, evil, powerful, influential, deceived or stupid; every person deserves our love, prayers and good will. [See Romans 2:1-16, or if you prefer, here.] Of course, genuine love does not—cannot—exist without reproof and rebuke. Respect for a person evaporates whenever that person knowingly, willingly and constantly clings to a lie, and/or strives to enrich himself at the expense of others.

Even still, our fellow human beings are not our enemy! Our enemy is the Father of Lies and all of his many spiritual minions. Make no mistake! We are now, maybe more than ever before, deeply engaged in spiritual warfare. The “falling away [10]” has begun. We all must do our part to stand up against, and to fight the evil forces of Naturalism, Atheism, totalitarianism, socialism, rule of man; TYRANNY! Failing this duty, Liberty and Rule of Law will be forever lost in the USA and around the world.

To my beloved detractors

Even though the knowledge may be deeply buried within the recesses of your heart, soul and mind, you know that God exists. Peel the onion! Underneath layer upon layer of #FakeEducation, #FakeScience, #FakeNews, #PopCulture and your own willful ignorance, you will eventually discover this knowledge—this Truth!

Meanwhile, you claim that God does not exist, yet, you hate Him. How can you so vehemently hate something that does not exist? The Frankenstein monster does not exist. Warp drive does not exist. Does any rational person actually hate these, and so many other fictional, nonexistent things? The real question is why. Why do you hate Him? The answer is this: You love yourself and the fleeting “pleasures” that your sinful nature gives you far more than you love Him and His Truth. You despise the very idea of a Supreme Judge of the Universe Who is much greater than you and can judge you for your inordinate love of self, and your insatiable appetite for instant gratification, fame, wealth and/or power.

Love of self is the embodiment of evil. Gratification, fame, wealth and power are transitory, much like life on this Earth. PLEASE, do not wager your eternal soul for the temporary things of this world! I respectfully and lovingly implore you to repent of your sins, to disavow the lies that you have been “taught” (i.e., brainwashed via #FakeEducation, #FakeScience, #FakeNews and #PopCulture), and to accept Yeshua—Jesus, your Creator and Redeemer!

We will all know the Truth someday.

Notes:

(1) Current events (e.g., #BlackLivesMatter/#DefundThePolice/#Covid_19) are relevant here. I’ll try to be timely with my next article.

(2) The myth of this supposed “consensus” will be discussed in Part III.

(3) This is absolutely in NO WAY on my part a judgment of the eternal soul FOR modern conservatives and classical liberals or AGAINST Naturalists, “Progressives” or modern liberals. ONLY the Omniscient Creator, Author of Law and Redeemer of mankind can make such a judgment!

(4) A “Neo-Darwinist” is defined as one who subscribes to a theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and either Mendelian or “modern population” genetics. [Please stay tuned for more on this in a future article.]

(5) This requires a discussion of “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution;” or, as some have called it, the specific theory of evolution vs. the general theory. Unfortunately, for lack of time and space, this discussion must wait until later—perhaps Part IV.

(6) In reality, closed systems rarely, if ever occur in nature. Closed systems are manufactured and controlled by scientists in a laboratory. To suggest that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems is absurd. Yet, this fallacy is preached as dogma in schools, colleges and universities all across the USA and all over the world.

(7) There are exceptions to every rule [of man], and Buddhists want everyone else to believe that they are the one and only exception to this one. Maybe, just maybe, they are!

(8) In all honesty, this article is to a large degree a refutation of this one critic. He posted a lengthy rebuttal to Part I of this series on his apparently quite popular website, which he subsequently (some two or three years ago) removed. The Urey/Miller/Bada experiments, DNA and cytoplasm were, as I recall, his prominent points of discussion.

(9) I incorrectly used “i.e.” (“that is,”) here. I should have used “e.g.” (“for example,”). Archaea are prokaryotic celled organisms as well.

(10) Please see, for some examples, I Timothy 4:1, II Timothy 3:1-3 and Matthew 24: 10-13.

© Sam Weaver

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Sam Weaver

Sam Weaver is a native Texan. Lively discussions back in 1984--first with his very liberal girlfriend, and then with several college instructors--made him question his beliefs and his belief system... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Sam Weaver: Click here

More by this author

 

Stephen Stone
'The fervent prayer of the righteous'

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Busted: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Cliff Kincaid
America’s turkey is the CIA

Mark Shepard
Joe Biden has no path to victory

Paul Cameron
Did Biden win the presidency? Democrats and Republicans disagree

Judie Brown
REPORT: ‘Planned Parenthood’s Racism . . . In Their Own Words’

Timothy Buchanan
You’re being robbed

Curtis Dahlgren
Four diplomats walk into a bar (the Thanksgiving classic)

Laurie Roth
America and Trump are fighting the Nazi party and Hitler all over again

Larry Klayman
God's plan: Save America by destroying current government

Rev. Austin Miles
Lying news media fakes Trump election recount results

Steve A. Stone
“Drop and Roll:” How The 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump

Randy Engel
Join the international boycott of Hallmark at Christmas time and forever

Rev. Mark H. Creech
The pandemic and the fear of death
  More columns

Cartoons


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites