Why All Atheists Are Fools
Sounds a little harsh, I guess, but that’s because many people don’t differentiate between being a “fool” and being “stupid.” They are very different things. Someone who is stupid is often fooled, so there is a strong correlation, but they are actually distinct concepts. Very smart people are also often fooled; in fact, sometimes, particularly creative people are fooled on a daily basis. This observation first came to my attention when my wife, a world-class scientist who has managed thousands of technical people over her career, made the comment that a friend of mine and I were so creative that we could explain away obviously contradictory facts with arguments that were both persuasive and incorrect. We’ll argue over the merits of the comment at some other point, but the comment’s central theme is what led me to realize that all atheists have been fooled by a complex explanation that is fundamentally flawed at its core. The fact that many were willing participants in the charade is what transforms them from being smart people who were duped by a con man into actually being fools themselves.
It is incumbent upon anyone who denies the existence of God, to develop an alternate explanation for the origin of man. The 20th Century will go down in history as the period in which new scientific developments led an unprecedented number of people to reject their ancestor’s belief in God. Charles Darwin’s experiments in survival of the fittest led inexorably to the Nazi death camps as the Germans decided to manufacture the perfect Aryan race. As with all socialist, statist regimes, they decided to pick the winners and surprisingly the answer came back that the Germans were the best mankind had to offer. The Japanese came to a similar conclusion about their race. Go figure. All others were consumers of limited resources and not worthy to live except as servants. All of the losers in the 20th Century were following principles based on who was superior. The eventual winners followed the principle of American Exceptionalism, which is based on adhering to a superior ideology, not a superior race.
Those who misused Darwin’s findings for evil actually completely missed the point of his effort. Nature punishes premature selectivity. Diversity of the races is actually the best way to ensure the eventual survival of the human race. The German social scientists were no more likely to guess which humans are the prototypes for the future of our species than modern economists are likely to predict the major components of our economy fifty years into the future. The driving technology of that future world probably hasn’t even been discovered yet.
It is incumbent upon anyone who denies the existence of God, to develop an alternate explanation for the origin of man. The 20th Century will go down in history as the period in which new scientific developments led an unprecedented number of people to reject their ancestor’s belief in God. Charles Darwin’s experiments in survival of the fittest led inexorably to the Nazi death camps as the Germans decided to manufacture the perfect Aryan race. As with all socialist, statist regimes, they decided to pick the winners and surprisingly the answer came back that the Germans were the best mankind had to offer. The Japanese came to a similar conclusion about their race. Go figure. All others were consumers of limited resources and not worthy to live except as servants. All of the losers in the 20th Century were following principles based on who was superior. The eventual winners followed the principle of American Exceptionalism, which is based on adhering to a superior ideology, not a superior race.
Those who misused Darwin’s findings for evil actually completely missed the point of his effort. Nature punishes premature selectivity. Diversity of the races is actually the best way to ensure the eventual survival of the human race. The German social scientists were no more likely to guess which humans are the prototypes for the future of our species than modern economists are likely to predict the major components of our economy fifty years into the future. The driving technology of that future world probably hasn’t even been discovered yet.
Darwin’s concept, summarized as “survival of the fittest,” is a winnowing concept, not a creative process. So scientists had to come up with a theory to explain the origin of man and they came up with evolution. I won’t go into this topic very much except to mention that this is a very long, drawn-out process involving millions or billions of years (geologic time, not historical time). This puts these theories seemingly into direct conflict with the creation story found in almost all modern religions. The scientists who are true believers in evolution tend to scoff when someone says they believe in a Creator and especially when someone mentions they believe in the Genesis version of creation known pejoratively amongst evolutionists as the “Young Earth” model.
I will mention here that the reason most people go into the biological sciences is because they have poor math skills. Similarly, people with excellent math skills are exceedingly bored with biological studies since they don’t require any complicated math. When a mathematician or physicist collaborates with a biologist, it is usually in a very narrow area like carbon dating, or sampling statistics. Evolutionists never voluntarily bring up the issue of increasing complexity seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. After all, what other plausible explanation could there be? Indeed, that is the real question, and the evolutionist’s failure to fully explore that theme is the underlying reason that all athiests are fools.
The great American physicist, Richard Feynman, states that every time he relies on another person’s summary of why something is occurring, he ends up in trouble. The only acceptable course is to examine the real data. A recent example of this is the famous hockey stick global temperature anomaly, where the scientists involved were consciously (and not conscientiously) manipulating the data to fit their preconceived notions. This was an epic example of too big to fail, where the scoundrel’s institutions were so heavily invested in the work of these pseudo-scientists that they had to cover up the misdeeds in order to survive.
Evolution doesn’t actually tell the whole story of the origin of man, a fact that most evolutionists conveniently forget to mention. It simply transforms the discussion from the origin of man to the origin of life. After all of the complexity, we still need to explain how life began. Panspermia, the idea that the seeds of life came from another planet or celestial world, simply moves this question to a different locality, it doesn’t explain how life began. By definition, the Creator mentioned above is an alien to our universe and therefore fits nicely into the Panspermia realm of thought. This means that Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply as both creationism and evolution rely on a miracle. Evolution’s miracle is buried, while the creation story proclaims the miracle of life, but both explanations rely on a miracle. Many scientists take it on faith that there will someday be an explanation for the origin of life, but that is still an article of faith at this point. This blind faith in science is why many Creationists refer to Evolution as a religion, the religion of Atheists.
I will mention here that the reason most people go into the biological sciences is because they have poor math skills. Similarly, people with excellent math skills are exceedingly bored with biological studies since they don’t require any complicated math. When a mathematician or physicist collaborates with a biologist, it is usually in a very narrow area like carbon dating, or sampling statistics. Evolutionists never voluntarily bring up the issue of increasing complexity seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. After all, what other plausible explanation could there be? Indeed, that is the real question, and the evolutionist’s failure to fully explore that theme is the underlying reason that all athiests are fools.
The great American physicist, Richard Feynman, states that every time he relies on another person’s summary of why something is occurring, he ends up in trouble. The only acceptable course is to examine the real data. A recent example of this is the famous hockey stick global temperature anomaly, where the scientists involved were consciously (and not conscientiously) manipulating the data to fit their preconceived notions. This was an epic example of too big to fail, where the scoundrel’s institutions were so heavily invested in the work of these pseudo-scientists that they had to cover up the misdeeds in order to survive.
Evolution doesn’t actually tell the whole story of the origin of man, a fact that most evolutionists conveniently forget to mention. It simply transforms the discussion from the origin of man to the origin of life. After all of the complexity, we still need to explain how life began. Panspermia, the idea that the seeds of life came from another planet or celestial world, simply moves this question to a different locality, it doesn’t explain how life began. By definition, the Creator mentioned above is an alien to our universe and therefore fits nicely into the Panspermia realm of thought. This means that Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply as both creationism and evolution rely on a miracle. Evolution’s miracle is buried, while the creation story proclaims the miracle of life, but both explanations rely on a miracle. Many scientists take it on faith that there will someday be an explanation for the origin of life, but that is still an article of faith at this point. This blind faith in science is why many Creationists refer to Evolution as a religion, the religion of Atheists.
Let’s for a moment reverse the idea of John Lennon and imagine there is a heaven and there is a deity known as the Creator. Furthermore let’s suppose that this Creator lives outside the bounds of time and space. This Creator would be just as capable of going back in time as forwards. So why wouldn’t his process of creation have the same property. Suppose that on Adam’s first day, there were no dinosaurs, only dinosaur bones. As the shock wave of creation moved back and forward in time from the singularity of Adam’s creation we would have some species living their lives in a forward direction and some creatures from Adam’s past living their lives in reverse much as “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” postulates. Following this scenario, Adam and Eve might have had fathers and mothers—they just were created after Adam in the Creator’s frame of reference, but earlier in our timeline.
This scenario doesn’t have to be true to be powerful. The concept of a creator outside of time and space means there are innumerable ways for the creation story to be consistent both with the Young Earth version of creation found in the Bible and the fossil record or any other set of data we could potentially collect. The scientific method simply does not apply in a discussion of whether or not such a Creator, or perhaps many other conceivable Creators, exists.
Any serious student of Evolution and the origin of life knows all of these facts and suppositions. They simply choose to ignore the fact that science cannot possibly have anything useful to say about the existence of a Creator. Any Creator worth worshipping would be more than capable of making everything consistent and, even if an anomaly did exist, could repair it such that the “discoverer” of the anomaly could be made to remember only the “repaired” timeline. To actively pretend that something is true, when it is provably not, makes one either a con man or a fool. I believe atheists are sincere in their beliefs and that means they are not con men, ergo, they are simply fools.
John Hall PhD.
Any serious student of Evolution and the origin of life knows all of these facts and suppositions. They simply choose to ignore the fact that science cannot possibly have anything useful to say about the existence of a Creator. Any Creator worth worshipping would be more than capable of making everything consistent and, even if an anomaly did exist, could repair it such that the “discoverer” of the anomaly could be made to remember only the “repaired” timeline. To actively pretend that something is true, when it is provably not, makes one either a con man or a fool. I believe atheists are sincere in their beliefs and that means they are not con men, ergo, they are simply fools.
John Hall PhD.
|
|
|