Science Proves That There is No God? Incorrect!
It is a widely held belief in the UK that science has proved that God doesn’t exist. This is a total fallacy. Here is the reality:
1 “Evolution disproves God”. This is wrong in two respects. First, a Scientific theory is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence. In any case, evolution is full of fatal flaws (see Link 1 at end of article). Second, even if evolution were true, it is possible that God used it in His Creation. (many Christians believe this, albeit incorrectly). Nothing here disproves God.
2 “The Universe is vast and has existed for billions of years”. Neither of these contentions, correct or otherwise, has any relevance to proof for or against God.
3 “God has never been observed in a scientific experiment”. The relevant maxim here is “lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack”. Simply, just because we cannot observe something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In science, many things are unseen, but accepted because of evidence of what they do. For example, nobody has ever seen an electron; their existence is inferred from the behaviour of atoms and matter. In any case, if there is an Almighty God, He would presumably choose Himself when, where and how he reveals Himself (see Link 2 at end).
4 “If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?” This is a philosophical/religious question; nothing to do with science (Answer at Link 3 below if you need it).
5 “Science simply doesn’t believe in God”. That’s correct, but the reason is an a priori assumption that God doesn’t exist. An a priori or prior assumption is something you know or assume to be true without any research or experience. (See Wikipedia here.) It is most important to realise that this is a prior assumption of science, with zero evidence.
6 “The idea of God is not rational”. That statement is merely an assertion. It is not evidence.
7 “I don’t believe in God”. People believe or do not believe whatever they want. None of it constitutes scientific evidence.
8 “Scientists don’t believe in God”. This is very far from the truth, and even if it were true it would only be a matter of belief, not evidence. Scientists, like everyone else, have other agendas. Prof Richard Dawkins, for example, has a visceral hatred of the God of the Bible, which he proudly proclaims. That is not science. And Dawkins never produces profound scientific evidence for his assertions.
9 “People in the past thought the Earth was Flat”. This is really an assertion that people in the past were stupid and the idea of God arose from their stupidity. Actually, the Greek Eratosthenes not only knew the Earth was a sphere, but calculated its circumference with remarkable accuracy over two hundred years before Christ. It’s true that people in the past had less knowledge than we have today, but they were no less intelligent. The pyramids were not built by idiots! People in the past achieved remarkable things with limited technology demonstrating just how capable they were. However, appeals to past ignorance can sometimes be valid. For example, Darwin’s theory was based in part on his total ignorance of both the complexity of the living cell and Genetics. Appeals to ignorance must always be justified specifically, as in this case.
This article is not dealing with the evidence that God does exist. It’s purpose is to clear the air of the gross misconception that science somehow proves He doesn’t. If you are still not clear on this, and you imagine that there really is scientific evidence disproving God, please state it below. We will add your statement to this article anonymously, together with a clear explanation of why it is not scientific evidence. Find current responses below the form.
Link 1 Darwinian Evolution is Bunk
Link 2 Understanding God
Link 3 If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?
See also Darwin Exposes Himself and Geology – The Rocks Really do Cry Out
(Before making a submission please be sure that you know the difference between true science, which is based upon repeatable experiments, forensic science, and mathematical/theoretical science. If offering evidence for Darwinian Evolution, be sure you know the difference between Darwin’s Molecules to Man evolution and Variation in a Kind, sometimes respectively referred to as macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Everybody, including school textbooks, loves to offer evidence of the latter as evidence for the former. If you can’t think of a solid piece of evidence for Darwin’s theory to offer here, it’s time to stop believing in it.)
Submission 11/08/18. Evolution of the Horse.
There is a huge amount of (dis)information on the internet and elsewhere about the supposed evolution of the horse over 55 million years. Evolutionist (Note, Evolutionist, not Creationist) Boyce Rensberger’s statement hits the nail on the head:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.
(My bolding in the above quote.) As with all gradual, alleged evolution, the essential transitional fossils are missing. The alleged transitional fossils are actually distinct species, which themselves lack evidence of their own evolution. It must be remembered that Darwin’s theory involves inorganic molecules gradually changing into men; fuzzy stories about one four-legged mammal turning into another four-legged mammal are very definitely not profound evidence for the first of these propositions. But such invalid evidence is regularly presented as the best there is. The huge amount of information on the web regarding horse evolution makes it clear that it is of great importance in proving evolution. Normally, nobody would put forward weak or flawed evidence in hopes of winning a debate. Evolutionists do it in this case because there is no better evidence. And if the alleged horse evolution is as good as it gets, evolution has around four less legs to stand on than the horse.
A further point is that many of the alleged evolutionary trees, at least in part, show one kind of horse evolving into another. This is simply Variation within a Kind, not Darwinian “one thing changes into something completely different.”
Darwin Exposes Himself!
Charles Darwin was the effective founder of the modern theory of evolution through the publication of his book “The Origin of Species” in 1859. The theory was very weak at the time, and, contrary to popular belief, has become no stronger since. Science now has uncovered the incredible complexity of the living cell, which Darwin thought was simple; and genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing, show that mutations are no longer tenable as the source of information on DNA.
It is important to refer to Darwinian Evolution rather than the shorthand “Evolution”. This is because use of the shorthand form promotes one of the major deceptions of Evolution. To give a simple example, a fox losing it’s fur colour to become a Snow Fox is called “Evolution”, and bacteria turning into men is also called “Evolution”. The two are conflated in the popular imagination to become the same process. They are not. The first involves only a minor change to a particular Kind of animal, easily caused by a small loss or mutation of genetic information. The second involves one Kind of organism changing into another, a process which would involve the creation of vast quantities of new genetic information, for which Darwinism offers no plausible source.
The exposure of this exact deception is actually made plain in the full title of Darwin’s book:
The Origin of Species
by means of
Natural Selection
Here the same logical trick is performed by the use of the word “species”. In Darwin’s day there was no clear definition of “species”, as he himself was well aware. Today, there is still no clear definition across all sciences. It is, therefore, a term that should not be used in science, as science relies totally on precision. More precisely, Snow Foxes and Brown Foxes are Variants of Fox, while bacteria and men are different Kinds of organisms. Natural Selection, or equally, human breeding programmes, do indeed produce different Varieties of plants and animals. But Natural Selection can never make one Kind turn into another Kind. Some people claim to be unable to understand the term “Kind”, as in Mankind, Dogkind, Horsekind, Catkind, Rodentkind and so on. It seems that Darwin had the same problem, or deliberately used the loose term “species” in an attempt to blur the distinction between Varieties and Kinds. Today, the term micro-evolution is often used to describe the changes within a Kind which happen, and have happened, on a huge scale, and macro-evolution to refer to one Kind of creature changing into another Kind, which never happens.
The title also reveals a second error in Darwin’s thinking which people manage to miss. Natural Selection is a Selection process. That’s why it’s called Natural Selection! It is not a creative process; it merely selects from features that already exist, whether they be visible in the organism concerned, or already encoded in it’s DNA. It cannot create a new feature or structure. It literally just remixes pre-existing features. That is why a dog can “evolve” or be bred into a different variety of dog, a horse into a different variety of horse, and so on. But a dog cannot “evolve” into a bird, because Natural Selection cannot select feathers, wings, avian lungs, nor any other bird-type features from a dog. They aren’t there, neither visible on the dog, nor hidden in it’s DNA. Darwin used a lot of imagination to conceive the process that turned a brown fox into a white fox continuing to turn the white fox into a bird. But that was all it was: imagination. And that is all it is today. The difference now is that we understand Genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing, so it needs still greater imagination. We now have to believe that mutations, which are merely the DNA equivalent of a typographical error, produce almost infinite numbers of exquisite designs. When did a good book reproduced with a million errors ever become a great book? Or even one that was still readable?
So, for those with a little scientific knowledge, the mere title of Darwin’s book exposes it’s false premises. There’s no need to read the book! Though if you do, it is interesting to see how he gets round the massive problem of the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record (Now normally referred to as Missing Links.) Darwin himself recognised that this was a killer for his theory. His way round it? He had “faith” that they would be found. It remains the case today that it takes faith of the worst sort to believe in Evolution, while the concept of an Intelligent Creator, Biblical or otherwise, provides an obvious fit with what we observe around us.
For more on Evolution, see a quick run through Evolution’s other fatal flaws here, or (some of) the evidence for short Geological time scales here. Or review the Home Page here.
Scientific Evidence for God – It’s this Simple!
Did you ever see good design in a car, or a phone, or a chair, or a bathroom shower? Did you ever think that such design came about with zero application of intelligence? Do you imagine that even poor design can come about without the slightest need for intelligence? Did you ever consider that rather than splashing out hundreds of pounds on an iphone, you could just take a stone from your garden and hope it would turn into one? Or did you think that would take millions of years? Or were you aware that no stone anywhere ever turned into an iphone, and that all those that do exist came about only through the application of intelligence?
When you look at the living world and see millions of examples of exquisite design, is it not clear that intelligence was needed for this? Whether you believe in evolution or creation, the question of design has only one answer: design does not come about without intelligence. As Paul says in Romans, long before anyone thought of Creation Science, the existence of God is “clearly seen . . .from what has been made.”
Creation Science has only arisen to counter the impact of Darwinism. Darwin thought endless random mutations on DNA would create exquisite design. Not that he had the remotest clue about DNA, nor even about genetics, but that was the drift of his imagination. It’s the same as imagining a book could come about through countless millions of typographical errors, with the paper, ink, and alphabet having all conveniently designed and created themselves first. The rank stupidity of this scenario, whether it relates to a book, a lion, a car, or anything else, is breathtaking.
No design, not even poor design, without intelligence. It’s that simple.
In School They Told You the Knee is a Hinge Joint. It’s Not True. And it Matters.
The Human Knee is a sophisticated piece of engineering called a Four Bar Mechanism. It functions as a simple hinge, but has an additional function. In the context of the knee, it enables the leg to bend, but when standing up straight it also enables the leg to act as a single column. This means there is no muscular effort required to keep the knee straight. A human being can stand for hours with little effort. By comparison, a monkey’s knee really is just a hinge, so for a monkey (or other primate) to stand straight for more than five minutes is a huge effort.
Take a look at this article to see how a Four Bar Mechanism is both so simple yet also so complex. There is no half-way house between a hinge and a Four Bar Mechanism. Therefore there is no possible gradual evolutionary pathway from one to the other. The Four Bar Human Knee had to appear in one go, fully formed and fully functional. It needed a Great Engineer to both design and implement it.
There are many other biological structures for which the same reality applies. To give but one example, nobody has come up with a credible evolutionary pathway for the eye. Even the starting point that students tend to imagine, a simple light-sensitive cell on the skin, is unsupportable. This is because, as we know now, that the retina at the back of the human eye uses thirteen instantly reversible chemical reactions, enabling it to change one photon of light hitting the retina into one electron travelling up the optic nerve to the brain. Even given all those reactions ready-made, plusthe physical structures in which they can operate, the probability of getting them in the right order by chance is rather low:
13 x12 x11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 = 6,227,020,800
So even with the clever chemistry and structures already in place, the probability of a light-sensitive cell working is only one in six billion. And that’s just a light-sensitive cell, not an eye! See Microbiologist Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996.)
Also see the Links on the Science Page for much, much more on this.
Failed Cup of Coffee Shows Crucial Dynamic in Geology.
There was a time at work when I wanted to be able to make myself a coffee really quickly. (Obviously too busy! Supply Teaching. Science and Maths.) I figured I could mix the right proportions of sugar, coffee and milk powder in a jar that I carried with me, and just add several teaspoons of the mix to hot water. It didn’t work. No matter how much I shook or stirred the jar to mix the contents, they tended to settle into layers. Rather than drink coffee that wasn’t to my taste, I gave up.
What my coffee was demonstrating was the same principle that geologist Guy Berthault proved in his experiments: simply that any particles that are dumped together tend to stratify into layers, according to the size and density of the particles involved. This completely overturns the idea that stratified rocks are built up slowly, fine layer by fine layer. Such layering is actually instantaneous. The implications for the formation of rocks and the Age of the Earth are enormous.
See the Berthault experiments and some more explanation here.
The Remarkable Man Who Corrects School Textbooks
In a large and dusty office in Longview, Texas sits a man who corrects school Textbooks. The office is on the first floor, above shops in a rather run-down strip mall. It doesn’t look like the kind of place that would ever have any input on the rest of the World. But Neal Frey, if he’s still alive and well, and his faithful wife, are in the right place. School books are big in Texas. You
may remember that the alleged lone gunman in the Kennedy assassination fired from a high floor in a School Book Repository. You won’t find a school book warehouse right in the middle of a British city. And you won’t find, in Britain, the law that Texas has, saying that school textbooks must be accurate. Partly because of this, many other US States follow Texas where school textbooks are concerned. So Texas schoolbooks affect the whole of the USA.
Correcting them just means reading through and picking out the mistakes. Simple! An American Science High School textbook runs to about a thousand pages. There are three publishers, who each produce their own version. Then there are the Teachers Guides. Then there are the other subjects, History, Geography etc. On finding an error, he has to notify the authorities and provide evidence for the mistake.
His biggest triumph has been with the claim that 99% of ape DNA is identical to Human DNA. 
All versions of the Texas books stated this “fact”. Neal Frey showed that the evidence really puts the figure around 70%. The books were all changed. Did the publishers draw attention to their previous error? Did they amend the 99% to 70%? No, they quietly dropped all reference to similarity or otherwise between Ape and Human DNA. Why? The 99% looks like evidence for evolution. The 70% is profound evidence against. The 99% figure, of course, continues to be stated anywhere that the law doesn’t prevent it.
Some things that Neal digs up would find little support in the UK. He is, for example, a believer in American Exceptionalism like many of his countrymen. Many in the UK would also not approve his move on Human/Ape DNA. But we find it to be an excellent example not only of how spoof evidence of Darwinian evolution is popularised, but also of the complete dishonesty that surrounds the endeavour. That figure was never published to educate young people; it was published to evolutionise them. Otherwise the correct figure would have appeared with an apology. As already stated, the bogus figure is still touted wherever the law permits.
More on the 70% here.
Why You Should Understand Thermodynamics and Information.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is effectively the most fundamental law in all of science apart from, as you may have guessed, the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law is pretty simple and fairly intuitive; in essence, it just says that you can’t make something out of nothing. It doesn’t have the profound implications which the Second Law has.
From here on we’ll normally refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics as simply “2TD”. What it says, in very, very simple terms, is that over time things get worse. This is also stated as things moving into greater chaos, or, more scientifically, as the “Increase of Disorder.” It may well be that in a particular place at a particular time things have become neater, better organised, cleaner or whatever, but overall there is always a decline because energy has inevitably been used. When used, energy degrades, and that degradation has an end point where it can never be used or do anything again. That is a very big deal indeed, since nothing happens without energy being used. This gradual degradation of energy is what tells scientists that the Universe had a definite beginning, and must also have an end, because the energy is running down so that the Universe is, in effect, gradually dying. (Physicists say “Entropy increases”.) This is a process which is quite different from, for example, planetary orbits which appear to be a cyclic, repeatable phenomenon. The degradation of energy is neither cyclic nor repeatable; it’s a one-off, single occurrence. It is, in fact, what gives us Time itself! If you ever wondered if Time was an invention of men to make life more convenient, or alternatively something that has an actual physical reality (as I did in my teens), you now have the answer; Time is a result of 2TD. I did say 2TD was fundamental, didn’t I?
This has implications for Eternity. If Time is limited, Eternity must be something different from Time and infinitely greater than Time. This concept of being Outside of Time gives us the understanding that Eternity is not Time going on, and on, and on, and on; it is actually the absence of Time. You can think of Time as a bubble within Eternity.
This understanding of Eternity and Time is also scientifically satisfying due to the principle that the “Cause is Always Greater than the Effect“. When we try to understand the beginning, or creation, of Time, that principle leads us to conclude that before Time existed there must have been something greater that could have caused it, which logically would be Eternity.
So the first points to take away from an understanding of 2TD are that Eternity is not a long extension of time, but the absence of it; and that time can run alongside or within Eternity. That’s a bit mind-boggling for most people, but follows logically from the science.
The next point to ponder is that Thermodynamics only relates to physical things: matter and energy. Such things are locked within Time. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that anything which existed in eternity/Outside of Time would also be completely outwith the matter/energy/time matrix that Thermodynamics defines. As such, it might also be non-material, and have no requirement for energy. Hold this in mind, and read on.
A related matter here is Information. Wherever we observe a high-level of organisation, which is the opposite of chaos or Disorder, Information is always involved. This is true regardless of whether that organised system is a living thing or an object like a car. The Universe is commonly defined as “All the Matter and Energy that exists.” But the Universe also contains Information; there happens to be bucket-loads of it on DNA! And two things science knows about Information are that, firstly, it only derives from Intelligence; it can never be created by chance. And secondly, that Information is a fundamentally different quantity from Matter or Energy. If it were not, it could be measured with the same units; but it can’t. Matter is measured in grams, Energy is measured in joules; and Information is measured in bytes. We use both matter and energy all the time to store or transmit information, but information has absolutely no fundamental or mathematical connection to either. The only entity it directly connects with is Intelligence. Since there is no Intelligence in the Matter or Energy within the Universe, and since there must be an Intelligent source for the Information on DNA, we should logically expect such a source to exist outside the Universe.
Putting all the points above together leads to a most interesting conclusion: such an information source would be outside the Universe, outside of Time, and non-material. That is exactly how we conceive of God or a spirit, and it is surely not coincidence that the most fundamental science implies the existence of such entities.
The Second Law also provides us with a devastating one-shot kill of Evolution. The many difficulties of Darwinian Evolution actually happening are always explained away by the supposed power of billions of years. But when we understand 2TD we know that billions of years of Time must produce chaos. That would be true even if the starting point were something highly organised. If the starting point is accepted as something as chaotic as a massive, mindless “Big Bang”, then the idea of aeons of Time ever producing anything organised is a double absurdity. Either Darwin’s Theory is wrong, or 2TD is wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is never wrong! (This might just be why you never heard of 2TD in school. Pupils are forced by law to learn Darwin’s theory. Teaching them a physical law that contradicts it might cause doubts.)
Scientists Dissenting from Darwinisn
Evolutionists often claim that all scientists accept evolution. The enormous list here shows something of the falsity of that claim. The list however, should be read with an understanding of the massive pressure on academics to conform to the majority view. The documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view here) shows how even a neutral reference by a scientist to Intelligent Design can be a career breaker. A reference to Biblical Creationism is even more damaging.
It is also important to realise just how compartmentalised science is. Even in High School, science teachers have a strong preference to stay within their own specialism, be it physics, chemistry or biology. Beyond school this is much more than just preference. A researcher in aeronautics, meteorology, oncology, combustion theory, or whatever, is most unlikely to have given any more thought to evolution than anyone else. Including such people on a list of scientists who accept evolution has little meaning. The list linked above shows scientists who have both seriously thought about evolution and are also prepared to put their career and reputation on the line by going public.
Whatever the numbers here, it is vital to remember that science is not a matter of politics or money, though these things have enormous influence on it. Science is about evidence. One man with evidence outweighs a million without.
Why Creation Science Matters
The existence of an Almighty Creator God is fundamental to Christianity. Darwinian Evolution denies the existence of such a Being, and is the foundation of Atheism. Since that denial is couched in scientific terminology, it must be disproved by science. Failure to do so produces a false dichotomy between Science and Faith. The results are that atheists who accept this dichotomy are confirmed in their Atheism; and “Christians” who believe it must reject the very first words of the Bible. When you reject the first chapter of a book as rubbish or mere allegory, you are well primed to disregard the rest.
The Churches have long argued that Creation Science is unnecessary. They thought they could live with Atheism’s bottom line. That is largely why they are dying. They are prey to the dynamic already mentioned, in which they first reject the beginning of the Bible, and then go on to consider which other parts they might consent to, and which they will reject.
Nobody who accepts Darwin’s delusion can have a clue as to who or what God really is, nor, by extension, can they truly understand His Son, Jesus.
Anybody browsing this site should take time to look into the science, unless they are already sure that a straight reading of Genesis gives the truth. “Faith” does not mean closing your eyes and willing God to exist. It means having trust and confidence in a God who you know exists. Creation Science provides that knowledge. That’s why it matters.
(Paul says in Romans that God and His qualities are obvious from what has been made. It should be obvious; it should be obvious that if a smartphone needs a designer a human being does too. For some it is obvious. But for very many of a generation drenched in Darwin’s folly, knowledge of the science is essential.)