Michael Ruse Says Evolution Teaches Atheism

If Darwinism teaches atheism, can this be taught in the public schools? It’s a question that was brought up by a  philosopher of biology and atheist in the evolutionary framework. Michael Ruse has re-affirmed what creationists have been saying for years on this issue.

He writes

“If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”

Like many evolutionists, they make the mistake of replacing Darwinism with the word, science. It’s meaning entails a broad definition that includes other areas.  In answer to his question, it addresses something religious as though it has the power to define what is or not about religious views. No machines create themselves into existence then build themselves afterwards into a highly advanced, finely tuned, system which resembles intelligently made machines.

Interpretation of what that data means is not science either rather it’s a subjective opinion based on a bias or knowledge at that point in time. Coyne who spends quite a deal of time on the creationism vs. evolution debate writes his angle on Ruse…

“I try to keep this website classy, so, in response to Michael Ruse’s latest public display of stupidity, I’ll refrain from calling him a “clueless gobshite”. Let’s just say that his brain has passed its sell-by date.  And just when you think his arguments can’t get any loonier, he comes up with a new one.  This time he argues that anyone who maintains that science and religion are at war, and are mutually exclusive constructs, is begging for the courts to ban science from public school classrooms.”

Evolution vs. Christianity as well as other religions are at war. Science, on the other hand is not at war with Christianity. Would it anti-biblical to know how the brain functions or the heart? Would it be anti-biblical to invent a particular electric car that doesn’t use massive amounts of energy or need gas? None of these things are anti-biblical yet they are based on the scientific method. It’s interpretation of evolution into everything that is called science.  A vast amount of things explain by evolution is not principles of logic, nor observation, experimentation and reason.

For instance, mutations play a significance role for demonstrating how evolution works in nature. An experiment was conducted by Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University on bacteria. Scientists had the flexibility to insert mutations in any area along the length of the genome. The results were surprising because it caused a reduction in fitness rather than an increase which evolution requires. While mutations can be tested in a lab, it doesn’t mean evolution is true, the experiment showed evidence against what is deemed to be an absolute fact by Coyne and others. However, it does show how nature actually works which is not anti-biblical at all.

Michael Ruse brings up another thing, could evolution be banned with it’s teaching atheism according to the church and state clause? Coyne and others say one can’t bring their beliefs in the lab, isn’t that restricting freedom of religion too? If a person concludes the brain for example is designed by God rather than random mutations being created then directed by natural selection, and the establishment telling you can’t believe that inside a lab while doing research, isn’t that a violation of church and state? Indeed it is, but what Michael Ruse fails to point out, judges are highly unlikely to ban evolution from public schools but the objections of it gets louder as more data falsifies it’s metaphysical premise!

What Is Your Favorite Scientific Debunked Belief?

Liberal blogger Richard Thaler, asked an interesting question about science theories going wrong and why it took so long for it to be corrected. He quite a response from scientists. One Physicist, writes…

“The earth is flat and the sun goes around it for the same reason that an apple appears to be more strongly attracted by the earth than a leaf, the same reason that when you add 20% and then subtract 20% you return to the same value, and the same reason that the boat is heavier than water. All of these statements appear to be correct, at first sight, and all of them are wrong…”

“The length of time it takes to figure it out is a matter of history and culture. Religion gets into it, psychology, fear of science, and many other factors. I do not believe that there is one parameter that determines how these things are found to be wrong…Religious people of all religions believe even more ridiculous things than all of the above. These are examples of the last 10 years, not of the middle ages.”

Here we go, the flat earth concept again, it has been used quite often by certain evolutionists to mock creationists or intelligent design proponents. One wonders how many years has this physicist really studied Christainity or religion? Most likely he has done some study, but ultimately he wrote a response that is based on a lie.

Isaiah 40:22…

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Suggesting the earth is a circle would not give the impression of it being flat! Rather than admitting their own faith in these conclusions they exalt evolution over God…

“The Great Chain of Being is another great example of a long-held, still not fully displaced, false view and also stems from the same kind of “wrongly centered ” thinking. Essentially the view is that humans stand at the pinnacle of creation (or just below God) and all other life forms are less perfect to a varying degree. Evolutionary theory teaches that all creatures are equally adapted to the niches in which they live; every branch of the tree is thus in a sense equally perfect.”

Who said Christianity and science were separate? First that say, it’s not a science, then they write in a blog that it’s a debunked science, which is of course is another lie coming from this particular camp of scientists. However, he does have a point about interpretation of the data, it’s based on a person’s logic or way of thinking. But his logic is clearly bias and outright wrong.

Science is a tool to learn with. On the other hand, evolution is a story that has been created by man. Take for example, Steven Taylor, a macro-invertebrate biologist from the University of Illinois who spent two decades studying the mysteries of cave life. His adventure was spending a lot of time in tight dark spots in numerous caves, observing bizarre creatures that live in these ecological “islands” cut off from the outside world. Now what he did in this project was about observing, recording data and studying the effects of the above-ground environment on the creatures below ground. It’s good science without a story about evolution. Science that confirms the Bible is another!

The cultists in evolution would like the public to believe that understanding these creatures without evolution would be impossible. The cultists in evolution would also like the public to believe that their truth is the way and the light and nobody can interpret nature but them. Answering the question about one’s favorite debunked scientific beliefs shows more than ever a need to open up science research, allow more views, creationist, intelligent design or otherwise!

Jack Krebs Conception of ID Proponent William Dembski

It’s been a mission for the likes of Jack Krebs to interpret Dembski as a “fundamentalist” christian who has been hiding in the closet for years about it until recently. In Panda’s Thumb, he quotes…

“Given this account of creationism, am I a creationist? No. I do not regard Genesis as a scientific text. I have no vested theological interest in the age of the earth or the universe. I find the arguments of geologists persuasive when they argue for an earth that is 4.5 billion years old…”

According to Krebs, this was a diabolical plan, a mastermind who was trying to take over the public schools, a lie by Dembski who he thinks is really a young earth creationist. Here is his evidence of this.

He quotes…

“I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.”

“Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.”

“Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.”

Krebs then accuses Dembski (who responded to the accusation) of bowing to the text of the Bible and thus calls him a young earth creationist. But he is far from that, old earth creationists do the same thing, they claim to accept the Bible as historical and then add and subtract certain things to fit what the Bible says into billions of years. One doesn’t become a young earth creationist by believing that the Noah’s flood happened or believing that Noah’s flood happened 100 years or 4500 years ago. Because Dembski believes that the earth is old in terms of billions of years as an indisputable fact which he claims has no more interest in exploring. Nor is Dembski “bowing to the text” or to scientific evidence to the contrary because if he was, he would be a young earth creationist.

Krebs ends with “They’ve lost in the school systems, (for instance, Kansas) Dover in 2005…” What he failed to mention was the Texas Science Standards which he would rather forget than remember where it was a major setback for his camp while most if not all the major players in intelligent design and creationism praised it and declaring it a victory for science. Indeed it was!

Stephen Hawking’s New Book Falls Into Anti-Realism

The Grand Design sounds more like a creationist or ID book rather than a consequence of the law of gravity. With this new book, Hawking decided to abandoned his hope in mankind’s ability to come up with a “theory of everything” as promised in A Brief History of Time. Three decades ago, he stated there was a fifty per cent chance of completing a “theory of everything” by 2000 but to no avail. His prediction wasn’t based on a possible acceptance of a creator, rather he used “God” as a metaphor because the vast majority of the population are theists.

The Grand Design has caught the attention of the mainstream media where it’s been hyped up and even my local newspaper picked up the story from the Associated Press. In one of the reviews about his new book, New Scientist says…

M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn’t stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful.”


Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed – until we start watching universes come into being – to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn’t that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn’t go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.”

This review is refreshing and more realistic than other publications that I have seen. The Grand Design falls into anti-realism where there are multiple independent views of reality which are considered possible, each one model-dependent without providing an example of reality. A theory for everything could also fit into anti-realism as well. This is what I call storytelling or science fiction!

Hawkings looks even more lost as he tries to explain away God being the creator. The problem with something being created out of nothing defies the laws of physics. So he did what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there. Hawkings claims there was pre-existing gravity and a multi-universe instead of nothing and this is his vain imagination is why he argues against God being the Creator. Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy!

Updated September 17, 2010: From the Wallstreet Journal

Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University writes…

“It appears that the dominant energy in our universe doesn’t reside in normal matter, or even mysterious dark matter. Rather, it is located in a much more mysterious form of energy in empty space. Figuring out why empty space has energy is perhaps the biggest mystery in physics and cosmology today.”

“The existence of this energy, called dark energy, has another consequence: It changes the picture so that knowing the geometry of the universe is no longer enough to determine its future. While this may be a disappointment, the existence of dark energy and a flat universe has profound implications for those of us who suspected the universe might arise from nothing.”

“Why? Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero…Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.”

There is no way that secular scientists or other people in general would believe that thunderstorms are created out of nothing with zero energy popping out of empty spaces, nor mountains, nor the grass that grows on our lawns! Stephen Hawking and Krauss alike are fools professing himself to be wise as they sink deeper into anti-realism of absurdity which defies natural laws which they profess to believe in while also denying the ever growing evidence for a Universe created by God which we as Christians rejoice in!