7 replies

  1. If anything, the amazing level of organization in cells is evidence of intelligent design. But sadly, many scientists continue to deny this observable fact.

  2. A good example of a scientist or scholar or expert in a field who can be massively wrong because of his presuppositions and conclusions on certain data.

    • This is a typical distraction that especially Christian apologists try to make.

      Of course scholars can be wrong. They’re human. But ultimately, conclusions should be derived from the evidence. All scientists study life and report the same evidence for design BUT many choose to interpret it according to preconceived neo-Darwinian ideas. They even admit that the evidence suggests design! Similarly, scientists who identify as proponents of intelligent design also interpret the evidence according to preconceived ideas. However, the difference is that these ideas are based on the design inference. We know from observations and experience that a computer is designed. Similarly, when we see evidence of complex design in cells, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they were designed. By whom is a different matter. Neo-Darwinian notions do not have such reasonable assumptions to support their interpretation of the evidence.

      In the field of Biblical studies, analyzing the text of the Bible can reveal undeniable evidence of contradictions or scribal changes. The conclusion would thus be that the Bible is “fallible” and “errant”. This is a reasonable conclusion because, as even Christian would agree if they look at books from other religions, if there are two conflicting statements and both cannot be true, then it is by definition a “contradiction” which disproves “inerrancy”.

      It is here that Christians expose their bias because they choose to be like the scientists who see evidence of design in life but choose to interpret it in an unreasonable neo-Darwinian context. The Christians, with their unreasonable and unsupported presupposition of “inerrancy”, choose to follow the opinions of “conservative” scholars who will acknowledge the evidence which implies “errancy”, yet who try to manipulate it in an “inerrancy” context. So they will say things like “different authors talking about the same event in different ways and points of view”.

      The bottom line is to follow the evidence where it leads.

  3. The incredible complexity of the human body, and of all life on Earth, makes it impossible to imagine that this was the result of “random events.” Have we ever seen some proto-life thing just walk out of the ocean or soil? Ever? All life that we ever observe is from reproduction of other life. When did DNA “randomly” assemble itself and start self-replicating? When did the first cell occur and survive long enough, in a secularly miraculous way, to start self-reproducing and dividing, continuing to survive until today, being the protocell of all life on Earth? These beliefs are so absurd and unscientific it’s quite mind-numbing, not to mention it is a rational impossibility (and empirical impossibility) for there not to be a Creator (cue First Mover arguments etc).

    The reality is, atheism is a corruption of the fitrah. It has nothing to do with science or facts. Ever atheist I’ve debated actually knows very little about science, or anything really. They’re generally very ignorant people, typically ethnocentric white people or ethnocentric non-whites with aspiriational whitism going on (please accept me white Westerners, I reneged on my culture! You have to accept me now!). I think most Western atheists are just racists who have a hard time accepting the fact the Arabs got the truth instead of them, once they realized Christianity has nothing to stand on.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: