Science | Bema Sheep

Dear Atheist:

I understand that you claim that God does not exist. Without question, you desire proof of something before you believe it; on that basis, you just blindly accept the explanation postulated by many in the scientific community regarding how everything started and works. Like so many, you assume that scientists have all of the evidence. It is true that certain evidence has come to light that seems to confirm their conclusions, but to believe that science has correctly interpreted all of the evidence, and has not excluded any evidence that might point in another direction, would imply that you accept anything they say as true, even without evidence, which violates your desire for evidence.

“Why would they lie,” you may ask. Well, perhaps, to protect their own reputation. Perhaps to continue justifying their own beliefs about how things work. Perhaps just to disagree with religion. Perhaps their parents did not express love to them, and they now have a chip on their shoulders, and now they want to show that their opinions matter. Any number of reasons may exist for anyone to lie. So, what if they are only showing you the evidence that they think confirms their hypotheses?

This may seem like a meaningless train of thought, but follow it, it actually relates. Do you accept that every person in jail is actually guilty? They are there because someone had evidence that pointed to their guilt. Yet, how often does “The Innocence Project,” and similar organizations, find evidence that exonerates these individuals who have been pronounced guilty based on some evidence? According to the Innocence Project, “There have been 325 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States” (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php, 2/14/15). So does evidence comprise the sum total of proof? I would argue that people can, and often do, twist evidence to make it say whatever they want. For example, how many police officers wanted cases off their desks, and saw some evidence that they could make say whatever they wanted it to about whomever they wanted it to say that very thing? Well, at least the ones who worked these 325 cases, and maybe more that no one, except the wrongly accused, has uncovered as yet.

Is science free from such prejudices? Police officers are people; scientists are people; politicians are people; atheists are people, and, yes, Christians are people. Only one person ever walked the earth who anyone would say is perfect, and he has not walked the earth for nearly 2,000 years. “According to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, 60% of adults can’t have a ten minute conversation without lying at least once” (http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60-people-cant-go-10-minutes-without-lying, 2/14/15).

Okay, so let’s assume that all scientists fall among the 40% of the population that can have a conversation without lying, and that these highly ethical people would never suppress evidence to the contrary of their theory, and, therefore, exhibit a greater degree of trustworthiness than the remainder of the general public. What do they claim leads the charge for everything to have come into existence as we see it today? Well, “The Big Bang” happened. Alright, where did the singularity that contained the correct ratio of matter to energy come from? Well, according to inflation theory, there were an infinite number of singularities that exploded. So, in all of these singularities, certainly the odds favor one of them having the right ratio.

Now we have a universe, so where did life come from? Well, some as yet to be determined random event happened that sparked a random protein strand, probably some kind of RNA, to life. If that random event had happened to another random protein at some other random time, would life exist as we now know it? Then that random protein strand started to randomly mutate in strangely advantageous ways, until, after countless random mutations, life exists today as we know it.

In other words, scientists surmise that random chance is the driving force. So, random chance brings about order? That plainly violates the concept of entropy, which is the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, science presents a god, random chance, which violates its own tenets, and is logically untenable. As such, since you agree with such inconsistent drivel, you can’t even see that you do have a god, the god of random chance, which is the author of chaos – according to both science (remember entropy) and plain reason. The Biblical name for this individual is Satan.

Yes, entropy can be counteracted, but only by something outside of the system exerting some energy on the system. So, what exerts that energetic influence to bring order instead of the chaos? Well, science, conveniently has no answer, so in the absence of an answer, you would say, “Nothing.” I would say that the very absence of an answer indicates that the answer is not to be found by science, and therefore, has an alternate explanation. By Occam’s Razor, the one answer, the simplest answer should be chosen, the simplest answer is God. Even by Spock’s logic, the last remaining answer, although you consider Him to be improbable, is God. You can turn to Him, or you can continue believing complete inconsistency, as you desire.

Sincerely,

The Bema Sheep

Note: use of any website as a reference does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of that website.

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or research paper.

Bema Sheep

Tag Archives: Science

Open Letter To An Atheist