Atheists argue that they’re all about reason, logic, and rational argumentation. In fact, they had a big “Reason Rally” in Washington proclaiming these bedrock atheistic principles. Atheists extend their paradigm by claiming that if you are not an atheist and do not believe in evolution then you are anti-science. They seem to forget that some of the world’s greatest scientists were Christians – from Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle to Johann Kepler to Michael Faraday and a whole lot more in between.

Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907–1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders.

“It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself. . . . It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." ((Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961), 62.))

These facts are well known to anyone who has the inclination to learn the truth, but there are few hard-core atheists who take the trouble to research the history of the relationship between the Christian religion and the origin and development of modern science. It’s there for anyone who has the guts to study the subject.

Then there are the arguments used by high profile atheists to support their claim that anybody who does not believe evolution has taken place from nothing to a full blown human is a fool and an intellectual dolt. There is nothing in our world that is analogous to the evolutionist’s molecule (never explaining where the molecule came from) to man theory.

In reality, some arguments presented by evolutionists are downright foolish. Consider this one from Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, who wrote the following in his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate:

“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.” ((Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the facts in the Evolution Debate (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 118–119.))

Berra equivocates on the meaning of “evolves.” The Corvette’s conception, design, and manufacture are the properties of development and have no similarity to the process of biological evolution that had no conception, design, or hands-on manufacturing.

The analogy would be comparable if one day a pile of iron ore, silica, and other inert substances found in a pile transformed themselves into what we know today as the automobile and eventually “evolved” into the 1953 Corvette that rolled out of the Chevrolet factory in Flint, Michigan on June 30th of that year. The Corvette could roll out because there were people who designed and manufactured it.

Berra’s Corvette analogy is sloppy science and logic. In fact, it’s neither science nor logic. The evolutionist cannot account for the material necessary for anything we see around us today. He might has well become an eastern mystic and proclaim that all is maya, illusion. There’s nothing logical in the analogy because it is false from start to finish.

A true scientist cannot be too dogmatic on many subjects. For example, both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein theorized about and experimented with gravity, but the force still remains a mystery. Consider the recent work of Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam. He contends that gravity is “an illusion.”

Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.

“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way. . . .

Evolutionists are all about the certainty of their hypothesis even when they admit that uncertainty is a pillar of science. Consider the following about Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity in 1916:

Now, almost one hundred years later, it is difficult to fully appreciate how much our picture of the universe has changed in the span of a single human lifetime. ((Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012), 1–2.))

The only theory thing in science that does not seem to change is the theory of evolution. Every time evolutionists can’t explain the theory experimentally or rationally, they create a new theory. Gradual evolutionary change “evolved” into rapid species change called “punctuated equilibrium.” Some have even argued that Earth was seeded with space sperm (panspermia or exogenesis). The late Nobel Prize winner Professor Francis Crick proposed a theory named “directed panspermia” whereby the seeds of life were purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. The most obvious question is, “Where did the seed come from, whether undirected or directed?

The latest scientific theory is that everything in the cosmos evolved from nothing. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a scientific experiment done anywhere where such a claim has been demonstrated. These are the imaginings of perpetual motion machines, but today it’s considered the latest in evolutionary theory.

In 2010, the darling of everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking argued that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In his book The Grand Design, Hawking states: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” This is science? Laws don’t create anything. It’s like saying that economic laws made Warren Buffett a billionaire.

Lawrence M. Krauss argues in a similar way in his book A Universe from Nothing that “every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear.” Krauss talks about “miracles” and Richard Dawkins, the high priest of the New Atheism, who wrote the Afterword to Krausss’ book and heaps abundant praise upon it, describes evolution as “magic” in his own book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

True enough, in order to be an evolutionist, you have to believe in miracles and magic since science doesn’t work.

An evolutionist like Krauss can’t explain how the world works except to descend into irrationalism. The following is from the Preface to his book:

In the interests of full disclosure right at the outset I must admit that I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is at the basis of all the world’s religions. Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to vibrant rainbows after a late-afternoon summer shower. Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that that each and every such object is lovingly and painstakingly and, most importantly, purposely created by a divine intelligence.

I don’t know of a single fundamentalist who has ever claimed that God designs every snow flake. Creationists of all types believe that God, to use modern computer terminology, programmed the world to function in certain ways. There is a long history of natural law theory going back centuries. The organized information that makes us work the way we do was created by God just as the organized information defines what a honey bee is and does was created by God.

Mr. Krauss has not explained how the water came into existence to make the snowflake or the informational structure that makes up the substance we call water to explain how it always reacts the same way given various temperatures and conditions. The same is true of rainbows that require water and sunlight. No one believes that God is shaping every snowflake. Dr. Krauss has constructed a straw man argument. Like all straw men, they are easy to set on fire.

Consider more of Dr. Krauss’s irrationality:

In fact, many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics.

So, Dr. Krauss, where did the laws of physics come from? He still hasn’t explained where the “physics” (physical things) came from let alone the “laws” that make the physical things work.

The arguments of Drs. Berra and Krauss remind me of the following:

“An often told story has a modern philosopher lecturing on the solar system. An old lady in the audience avers: Earth rests upon a large turtle. “What does this turtle stand on?” the speaker needles. “A far larger turtle.” As the scholar persists, his challenger retorts: “You are very clever but it is no use, young man. It’s turtles all the way down.” ((Charles W. Petit, “Life and Culture: Cosmology,” U.S. News & World Report (August 16/23, 1999), 74.))