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 atheist 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.”1
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.
Then there are the arguments used by high profile atheists to support their claim that anyone who does not believe evolution has taken place from nothing to full blown human is a fool and an intellectual dolt.
In reality, it’s some arguments presented by evolutionists that 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.”2
Claiming that the evolution of an automobile is in any way similar to the evolution of a human being is the epitome of irrationality, especially when you begin with the unprovable and unscientific premise that the stuff of the cosmos came into existence out of nothing and that matter without the benefit of organized information evolved into complex biological entities.
Berra equivocates on the definition of “evolves.” The so-called evolution of the Corvette required numerous designers. It took intelligence of a personal nature to manufacture the Corvette. The Corvette did not come into existence or “evolve” by chance.
- Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961), 62. [↩]
- 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. [↩]