Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2015, 03:29 PM
Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
This is a paper I wrote debunking the "science creation". It elicits my concerns and why I can't possibly truly be an Atheist.

Sorry for the formatting... It didn't paste correctly from Word.



The Inherent Weaknesses of Evolutionary and Cosmological Science

The most zealously disputed matter encompasses the vital questions of where we came from and how we got here. The disagreement occurs between advocates of deity creation, and secular science explanations. Many evolutionists, cosmologists, and their avid followers claim that the belief in a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence. Although, there are many problems with the secular argument, including: the legitimacy of mainstream astrophysics, the inability to explain the fundamental building blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories in cosmology, and the unexplainable origins of complex biological systems.

First of all, it must be made clear that the field of astrophysics often uses entirely inconceivable methods, yet it is still predominantly found in the major scientific magazines. Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter. More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” He regards disciplines such as astrophysics as pseudoscience due to its inability to support claims with empirical data: the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical laws of this universe, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by scientists with influential power. Since they cannot test a large portion of their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists. Such positions are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic” (Scott), by which of course sets the standard for magazines and online articles. Apposing theories, like Scott’s, disagree with existing ones and therefore are not popularized. It would also suggest that data that questions, contradicts, and points to a creator would also be under scrutiny. This means that mainstream science should, by no means, imply there is no evidence indicating the opposite. All in all, it is naïve to definitively believe in publicized scientific views because they are both untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field, with similar humanistic beliefs.

One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life. For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides. After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic/branch in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To propose how inorganic (without life) molecules could be converted to organic (life) naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes. He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were consistent with early earth’s environment. The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now indicates that the variables were not consistent with the updated model of early earth. Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and RNA synthesis reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet). At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed. No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.
This is just one example of how our growing knowledge of science has and does hurt preexisting evolutionary theories. It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on. What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today? Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw? It’s not likely.

With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution. Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices. Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.

Yet another and also dominant explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.” It entails that our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes. Cosmologists reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance. They have discovered dozens of physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover). For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).

In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unraveled yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).” This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-another case of an abolished theory.
Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started. In order to justify the Multiverse theory, which originates from the indication of a higher power, they create hypothetical mathematical models to express how it could happen. Evidently, as knowledge of our universe increases, scientists have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories and need to resort to even more abstract leaps, with the transition of the Big Bang to the Multiverse Theory as one example. The dominant Multiverse theory is concerning because it is built upon the logical reasoning of scientists, rather than empirical data, pulled from the universe being perfectly sustainable. This is a direct example of the pseudoscience that Scott and others expose. To hold such a theory requires an equal amount of faith, if not more, as theism because it is also unobservable (by scientific means). Should uneducated people blindly submit this pseudoscience promoted by scientists and popular media? If cosmologists believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose? It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull “evidence” from unobservable data.

(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today. Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination. Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species. Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing which states, “‘if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Behe).’” Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions). Behe damages the authenticity of his book by directly contradicting his statement above by the concept of “Irreducible Complexity.” He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).” As Darwin said, it is significant because evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years. No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve, because even if one of these systems starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task (evolutionary process), there are hundreds of other parts with tasks that are essential to sustain its life. This would result in an endless, repeating cycle of death, preventing evolution from even beginning. As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena. In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex systems are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.
To put irreducible complexity into perspective, the picture below depicts the newly discovered interacting pieces of the flagellum, which all need to be present at the same time in order to function.


[Image: flagellum.png]


(This is not the only substantial evidence of a higher power; there are hundreds of well-supported concerns that only several books could do them justice. A notable example is Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen Meyer. Irreducible Complexity was only emphasized to debunk Darwin’s contingent statement.)

It is imperative to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power. It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both. Secular pseudoscientists are constantly insisting on new theories that we cannot understand yet. It is a faulty pursuit that insists we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. Furthermore, unless you can genuinely believe that these modern scientific assertions are reasonable, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it. Given all of this, and the equal in integrity evidence that suggests otherwise, the real question should ask who we came from, not how we got here.












Works Cited
Behe, Michael J. "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference: Behe, Michael." C.S. Lewis Society. Cambridge University, 1994. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Behe, Michael. “Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum.” Digital image. Evolution News, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Davidson, Michael W. "Molecular Expressions Cell Biology: Animal Cell Structure - Cilia and Flagella." Cilia and Flagella. N.p., 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Lunz, Stephen. "Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened." IFLScience. 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Peet, John. "The Miller-Urey Experiment." Truth in Science, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Ross, Hugh. Dr. Bang Refined by Fire. Pasadena: NavPress, 1998. Print.
Scientist. "10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked." Famous Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
“Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning.” ScienceDaily. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Scott, Donald E. The Electric Sky Book. Introduction. Mikamor Publishing. Portland: Mikamor, 2006. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Wolchover, Natalie. "New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis." Quanta Magazine, 1 June 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2015.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Too long didn't bother to read through.

No clue what this has to do with atheism.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-05-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
So, you're an Atheist, yet you don't think the universe was created by scientific means? I understand believing this apposed to a deity, but I can't understand how one can disregard both. Explain your views - how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Any post that cites Behe as an authority is automatically ignored. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 16 users Like Chas's post
13-05-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 03:29 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids to form,

This has been observed in the lab:

Miller-Urey experiment

So you've proved your ignorance, nothing more.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheInquisition's post
13-05-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 05:04 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?

Not having all the answers doesn't mean that god becomes a legitimate solution. You would need to have positive evidence for a god and not just "what else can it be?".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like unfogged's post
13-05-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
I stopped at the second paragraph.

First, the sites authors have clear biases and don't understand how science works. I'll give this a more thorough reading later, but that's what I picked up so far.

And perhaps this is mentioned later but this still has to addressed my main objection to this. Suppose I grant that these theories are dead wrong, that doesn't mean god did it and it certainly doesn't mean a specific god did it. Provide me with a reason to think such a god exists that doesn't rely on a poor understanding of science and a god of the gaps. Hell, just tell me what you mean by "god" and we'll talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like natachan's post
13-05-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
Sorry.

All I can see is a red dong and yellow balls.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
13-05-2015, 05:30 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
(13-05-2015 05:04 PM)thequestioner Wrote:  So, you're an Atheist, yet you don't think the universe was created by scientific means? I understand believing this apposed to a deity, but I can't understand how one can disregard both. Explain your views - how did the universe, this world, life, and us come to existence without science or a higher power?

I'm an atheist who doesn't care at all how the universe began.

I'm an atheist because I disbelieve all religions as made-up stories by people mostly long ago...

And as a way to explain that which they couldn't understand.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-05-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: Why I Can't Be An Atheist - Scientific Approach
You've "solved" the problem of complexity of the universe by supposing the existence of a "being" much more complex (possibly infinitely more complex) than the universe. Of course, you'll accept the complexity of this god being as self-explanatory while stating the simpler universe complexity can't be explained on its own. As I said to my JW cousin, when your eight year old comes up with such logic, all the adults in the room smile and you give him (or her) a hug and suggest he go out and play with the other children.

And even if we accept this "logic", what on earth makes you think that this god is YOUR god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like jockmcdock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: