Also Available in:

The atheists’ creation story1

by

Published: 12 July 2016 (GMT+10)
iStockphoto playing-cards

The General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is the atheists’ creation story. As with the Bible, it begins with creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)—and in the atheists’ view there really was nothing (and certainly no God) to act as first cause. The big bang, they say, produced the universe all by itself. Then, billions of years later we’re told, the first life formed spontaneously in some chemical soup and, without any help, evolved into all the plants and animals found on Earth today—including us.

Contrary to impressions given by the media, never before has there been so much evidence challenging this story. Such are the problems secular cosmologists have in trying to make their big bang models work, they end up making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. For example, in December 2014, top cosmologist Lee Smolin published a book suggesting that the only way to solve the big bang’s many scientific problems is to argue that the laws of physics were different in the past.2 So, when the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

Similarly, leading origin of life researchers, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-life. Unperturbed, however, they do the same as the secular cosmologists—they take a gigantic leap of blind faith and believe that the required natural processes existed anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. Richards Dawkins is adamant that, once first life formed, Darwin’s theory can explain how this could have evolved into people. But why then are leading biologists such as James Shapiro and Stuart Newman quietly looking for alternative theories?3,4

Faith masquerading as science

All this demonstrates a commitment not to science, but to a worldview that excludes God from one’s thinking, i.e. to philosophical naturalism—the doctrine that everything, including the origins of the universe and life, can be explained entirely by natural processes. It’s an ideology which is neither scientific (arising from blind faith rather than observations) nor necessary for scientific progress, as CMI has pointed out many times before. For example, Philip Skell, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, commented:

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.5

The magnitude of the problems with the GTE are hidden from the general public, with popular science programmes almost always peddling the secular view as fact. At the same time, creation scientists are never given a realistic opportunity to present an alternative view. In universities, even non-creationists who dare to inform students of problems with Darwin’s theory can find themselves out of a job.6 In UK state-funded schools, Government regulations now prohibit the presentation of Intelligent Design or Creation as views which are supported by evidence.

The antidote—promoting true science

All this makes our youngsters very vulnerable. ‘Scientific’ explanations for the GTE can appear very convincing when only the evidence supporting this view is presented. In Proverbs 18:17, we read, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” How much more so when nobody with contrary evidence is allowed to speak? Evolutionary beliefs are maintained by censorship—and with great effect.

Christians, however, are not without resources to counter this secular onslaught. Our website (creation.com) has over 9,000 articles demonstrating the clear superiority of the biblical worldview over and against that of the secularists. Moreover, month by month more evidence challenging evolutionary beliefs is uncovered and Creation magazine puts this directly into subscribers’ hands, enabling us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

References and notes

  1. This first appeared in the CMI (UK/Europe) CMI Extra, March 2015. Return to text.
  2. Smolin, L. & Unver, R.M., The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 2014. Return to text.
  3. Shapiro, J., Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, FT Press Science, USA, 2011. Return to text.
  4. Mazur, S., The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, North Atlantic Books, USA, 2010. See also review by Walter Remine, creation.com/review-altenberg-16. Return to text.
  5. Skell, P.S., Why do we Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary Theory Contributes Little to Experimental Biology, The Scientist, 19(16):10, 29 August 2005. Return to text.
  6. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, DVD, Premise Media Corporation, 2008. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

gary W.
In the beginning there was either something or nothing. If there was nothing we wouldn't be here so there must have been something.Everything you see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel, and even those things you can't see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel had to have come from that something. There is a lot of information going into everything I just said and that information, coming as it does from that "something" mentioned previously can mean only one thing: that something is God and is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. There can be no other explanation.
I. F.
In response to M.K.
Genetic entropy is an example of pseudo-science. The term has no meaning in biological sciences and has gained no traction whatsoever in the science community. If the idea, or theory, could hold water, so to speak, other scientists would have picked up on it long before now and there would be citations in learned science journals. Dr Sanford's idea has no citations outside of creationist circles. This is not prejudice. If the idea had merit, and more importantly, evidence, this would have been noticed. Scientists follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Some will inevitably stray, or get things wrong, but the general trend of the self-correcting nature of science can be trusted.
Dominic Statham
The reason why Sanford's findings are not mainstream is that, if they were accepted, Darwinism would be shown conclusively to be the pseudo science it is. For many atheists, there is no creator therefore evolution must be true. Darwinism is the best theory they have and therefore it will be defended to the end.

You say, "Scientists follow the evidence, wherever it leads". In some areas, this is true--but not when it comes to evolution.
Graeme M.
Many years ago I had been 'sucked' in on evolution ... but reading the Bible and hearing 'real' science, I now laugh at the thought of such evolutionists conjuring up all sorts of philosophies to fit their findings! However basic visual observations alone should tell them design and a designer!
M. K.
In response to I.F.

We (biblical creationists) don't believe there's a huge conspiracy against creationism, simply prejudice. We do not want to force teachers to teach biblical creation, but we believe they should have freedom to present evidence against the dominant paradigm, which is ignored by schools nowadays. Why don't schools tell students about C 14 in diamonds or genetic entropy? Also, we are against the misinformation presented in textbooks. For instance, the textbooks claim homology is evidence for common ancestry, but even evolutionists themselves believe it can arise via ''convergent evolution''. I disagree that creationism has contributed nothing to science, for instance, belief in a young Earth has inspired the RATE team to look for C 14 in diamonds, which they found successfully. If they believed in evolution, they wouldn't have bothered looking for it.
Mike G.
Dear Kevin H. The question "who created God" is quite common.

God is simply the first cause of all other causes. He is not simply one more link in an endless chain of causes, nor is He like anything else that can undergo change.

He is the uncaused cause, and there can be only one.

If there was no First Cause, then nothing would ever exist. You can't have an infinite regression of cause and effect patterns - i.e. something being caused by something, which in turn was caused by something, ad infinitum, because nothing would ever be the initiator of any change. But things do change. Cause and effect patterns are real. So there must be an explanation.

Saying that if only a broom had an infinitely long handle it could act on its own would be absurd.

No, the broom can only do its work if something that is external and seperate to the broom causes it to move across the floor, no matter how long the handle is!

Asking "who created God" is only adding one more cause in the series, and the series must be finite, and the first uncaused cause is what we call God.
Johan C.
This is a factual and relevant article.I like it.Thank you.
I. F.
"In UK state-funded schools, Government regulations now prohibit the presentation of Intelligent Design or Creation as views which are supported by evidence."

This is true, and with good reason, because creationism contributes nothing to the scientific endeavour. Its exclusion from education has nothing to do with any conspiracies against creationism-there is no conspiracy. People are too busy educating the next generation, and running the country, to give any thought to something that is not productive, until it actually starts interfering and damaging the development of young minds. Moreover, creationism is simply untrue, an example of cargo cult science. You can say what you like, cite snippets of this, that and the other from multitudes of articles that support the creationist house of cards, but the simple fact remains that the science community and progressive governments simply ignore creationism, and will continue to do so, for the reasons I mention here.
Dominic Statham
You wrote, "creationism contributes nothing to the scientific endeavour". Really? According to some leading historians of science, the modern scientific revolution arose because of a belief in biblical creation--see here.

Conversely, belief in evolution can be shown to have obstructed the progress of science. For example, evolutionary thinking led scientists to conclude that most of our DNA is junk. Consequently they didn’t study it and it was many years before they discovered that it has many important functions. Professor John Mattick remarked, “the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding [junk] DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.” The reason that this was such a serious mistake is that understanding the functions of the so-called ‘junk DNA’ is providing many clues as to how to treat genetic disorders. Had the biblical creationist Isaac Newton been responsible for directing genetics research, this mistake would surely never have been made. Newton would never have countenanced the idea that the human body would have been created with junk.
Leonie E.
I don't understand why, when you refer to our planet in this article, you use a lower case 'e' for 'Earth'. If you refer to Jupiter, for example, you would automatically use an upper case 'J'. This is the only planet where God deigned to put Life. Surely, we should not follow the dominant paradigm on this, it seems to me to demean God.
Dominic Statham
Our convention is to capitalise when used as a proper noun, but not when we refer to 'the earth'. So, for example, the last sentence of the first paragraph uses a capital: "... all the plants and animals found on Earth today—including us."
Gabriel S.
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" 1 Corinthians 1:21.

The Creator and His work is foolishness to the evolutionist and his world. As stated in the article, they will even go as far as to postulate that the laws of physics changed over time and most probably they will argue that there have been natural laws of which the nature, essence and other aspects are not even known which have had an 'evolutionary', life-creating influence.

It is ironic that by virtue of this highly speculative and creative thought process of many an evolutionary scientist, he/she actually moves into the realm of hocus-pocus, an intellectually, ethical and logical abyss where everything goes and morality also becomes relative.

It’s hard to decide at which point the apologist must stand up and leave the debate as God intentionally, and for His divine purpose, makes people blind to His truths (John 12:40) - for being embroiled in the debate can take your eyes of Christ (Hebrews 12:2); the result of which will send you into the same abyss as those you argue with!
Kevin H.
I believe that no one knows for certain as to how old the earth is. Maybe one day with further knowledge we may find out for certain. One question, who created God? Also I believe that in the Universe we are not the only form living life.
Dominic Statham
Our view is that we can know, approximately, how old the earth is because the Bible gives us a history of world from its very creation--see here. Being eternal, God is not a created being, and this provides the most rational explanation for the existence of the universe--see here. We believe that extra-terrestrial life is inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible--see here.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.