Evolutionary Scientists are Becoming More Irrational

At this year’s Reason Rally, reason was touted as the atheists’ first principle. No one has ever seen reason, and yet atheists believe in it. Reason has never done anything, and yet atheists attribute all types of qualities to it.

In addition, there is a lot about the cosmos that we do not know. No human being has been beyond the confines of the Moon. Space travel is measured in light years. There may be billions upon billions of galaxies and space beyond space and other entities that we know nothing about. To argue with certainty that God does not exist is not a scientific claim. It’s a statement of faith. All an atheist can say is, “I believe God does not exist.” A belief is not a proof.

We are all limited by geography and knowledge.

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 this from 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. . . .

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.

For example, Lawrence M. Krauss argues in his book A Universe from Nothing that “every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear.” I’m amazed that non-theists use unscientific language to describe what they claim is a scientific worldview. 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 irrationality. 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. 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 to different temperatures. The same is true of rainbows that require water and sunlight.

Dr. Krauss is engaged in some evolutionary sleight of hand. He needs outside energy to make his evolutionary machine work. He must teal that energy from the theistic power plant that he ridicules and misrepresents. Consider this bit of 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.