CAN'T YOU DO BETTER THAN THAT 1.0 - Atheism

Once a young man, we will call him Ryan, attended a meeting where scientific evidence and arguments for creation were presented. Ryan was of atheist persuasion and took the opportunity to ask challenging questions. His challenges were more than met. Then the presenter asked him a challenging question. Could he imagine earth's history as presented in Genesis to be true? At first, he looked as though he might but then said, "I see where you are going with this. If Genesis is really true then I must put aside my own way of life and dedicate my life to God. I cannot do this. It would be a waste of my life."

One should not be angry with Ryan. He is more honest than most. He is openly admitting that even if the scientific evidence supported creation, he could not believe in it because it would radically change the way he saw and lived life. It would be easy to propose some major moral problem in his life but that would not be fair. What is fair to say is that his criteria for choosing evolution science over creation science had nothing to do with scientific argument or evidence. He really was not concerned about the fossil record. Simply put; if evolution were proved false he has no intelligent sounding defense to avoid God.  His choice was made clearly on religious grounds not science.

Others less honest than Ryan would say that evolution is science and creation is religion and therefore evolution is true. God is unscientific! Hmm. Is it that easy to dismiss God? Don't they wish! Philosophy provides a number of powerful arguments that demonstrate the existence of God. Atheists are sure to disagree. However, the atheist philosopher Dr Flew recently converted to theism through the power of the design argument though he has not adopted any particular faith. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU . The argument from design was not just reasonable to him but compelling. Even one well-educated atheist admitting this to be true was more than some could bear.

In the last few years a number of atheist authors like Hitchens and Dawkins have started a counterattack. Dawkins wrote the God Delusion. He tried to counter the design argument by supposing that there are trillions upon trillions of universes with different physical traits and constants so that at least one might have the exact laws and constants necessary to support life. And why does he choose science fiction multiverses with trillions times trillions of possibilities? Well, to overcome the immense improbabilities involved if there is only one universe! [Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.144-147] This metaphysical conjuring is no refutation at all. In reality Dawkins, like our friend Ryan, rejects God's claim on his life and therefore he must believe in evolution.

Evolution is not science. It is an anti-God philosophy - Darwinism. Its purpose is to explain everything  without God. Under Darwinism "we are purposely created" becomes "we are mere accidents"; "we are divinely endowed with an eternal spirit" becomes "we are just chemistry"; "we are destined for paradise becomes "we are stardust" and "God loves you to the point of dying for you on the cross" becomes "who needs a saviour?" What we really need to ask the Ryans and Dawkins of this world is, "Can't you do better than that?"