Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
102 Atheism vs. Theism


Atheisms Circle of Reasons

Prelude: "Atheism/Theism" vs. "Science, the Bible, & Creation"
Atheism: Introduction and Charges
Charge 1, Deduction and Induction
Charge 2, Question 1
Charge 2, Questions 2 and 3
Charge 2, Summary and Question 4
Charges 3 and 4, Definitions
Empirical Evidence
Scientists Acting as Mechanisms, Article 1
Scientists Acting as Mechanisms, Article 2
Scientists Acting as Mechanisms, Article 3
Occam's Razor and Conclusions
Footnote 1
Footnote 2 and 3
Proof of Life
Not Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 1
Not Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 2
Not Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 3
Not Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses 4
Scientists: Life on Earth Imported from Outer Space
Atheisms Circle of Reasons
Is God a White Crow?



As we discussed in our main series of articles regarding Atheism and Theism, Atheists often charge that Theists begin by assuming God exists and then end by concluding this very same thing, that God exists. This, of course, would be circular reasoning. In that series of articles, we demonstrated that Theists do no such thing, but start with inherently atheistic assumptions. The following quotes will establish that it is, in fact, the Atheists who engage in circular reasoning. That is, Atheists begin by assuming that life came about through unintelligent forces, then resist considering any alternative to this assumption, dismiss any shred of evidence that might indicate otherwise, and end up with the not-so-surprising conclusion that life came from unintelligent causation.

1) It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes--a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science--it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less, than in millions of years. - American Scientist article

NOTE: As this quote demonstrates, scientists define intelligent agency as being outside of the realm of science right from the start. Thus, in refusing to consider the alternative, they force themselves to conclude the assumption they made from the very start. It is the job of science to find out what is true. This is an unfair and blinding approach to science because if life was perhaps created by intelligent design, this approach would prohibit us from discovering that fact.

2) An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided. - American Scientist article

NOTE: Once again, we see that scientists as a rule will ignore or disregard any hint of intelligent agency during their observation of nature and experimentation.

3) The synthesis of urea by Friedrich Whler in 1828 is usually hailed as the first proof that a special "vital force" is not needed for organic syntheses. Lingering traces of a vitalistic mystique nevertheless long remained associated with organic chemistry, seen as a special kind of life-dependent chemistry that only human ingenuity could equate. The final demystification of organic chemistry has been achieved by the exploration of outer space. - American Scientist article

NOTE: This quote exemplifies how it is the goal of science to find an alternative to the apparent notion that life would require causation similar to human ingenuity.

4) The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far. - American Scientist article

5) It seems very unlikely that protometabolism produced just the four bases found in RNA, A, U, G and C, ready by some remarkable coincidence to engage in pairing and allow replication. Chemistry does not have this kind of foresight. In all likelihood, the four bases arose together with a number of other substances similarly constructed of one or more rings containing carbon and nitrogen. - American Scientist article

NOTE: As indicated by Quote No. 2, foresight implies purpose and purpose, would in turn, imply intelligent causation. So, once again, the two above quotes demonstrate that when the observation of nature seems to indicate the involvement of foresight in natural processes, scientists reject that notion and then come up with alternate hypothesis to make foresight unnecessary.

6) It also seems likely that life would arise anywhere similar conditions are found because many successive steps are involved. A single, freak, highly improbable event can conceivably happen. Many highly improbable events--drawing a winning lottery number or the distribution of playing cards in a hand of bridge--happen all the time. But a string of improbable events--the same lottery number being drawn twice, or the same bridge hand being dealt twice in a row--does not happen naturally. - American Scientist article

7) Life is a cosmic imperative. The universe is awash with life. - American Scientist article

NOTE: These two quotes demonstrates that the scientific conclusion that life must be common in the universe is derived from the assumption that life on earth cannot be a unique or special occurrence, as that might imply intelligent causation. Additionally, if life is unique to earth, that would also demonstrate the extreme improbability of life coming about by natural forces, which would again point to intelligent intervention to overcome poor probability.

All of the above quotes attest to the fact that science begins by prohibiting intelligent agency from being a possible explanation for life and ends with concluding that intelligent agency is not necessary to explain the origin of life. As our article entitled, "Not Theories, Unsubstantiated Hypotheses" this prohibition of intelligent agency is so complete that scientists will come up with an endless string of un-testable and unverifiable hypothesis (which they refer to as Theories) just to provide any possible alternative explanation to intelligent causation, including that life came from Outer Space (SEE our article, "Scientists: Life on Earth Imported from Outer Space.")


Sources

http://www.americanscientist.org/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
September-October 1995
The Beginnings of Life on Earth
by Christian de Duve

http://www.discover.com/archive/index.html
First Cell
By Carl Zimmer