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!

Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution Is True

All too often we hear that too many people are not embracing evolution but for those who reject it, they have a logical good reason.  Jerry Coyne is a professor of biology who currently resides at the University of Chicago. He regularly debates and defends evolutionary principles.

Last year he wrote a book on why evolution is supposedly true. Some say he has a sad understanding of creationism but that’s hard to believe. He debates in a very tactical manner that angles to what he considers the easiest way for a winnable argument rather than taking it head on.

For example, he argues in his book that if the Earth was young, then Africa and South America would only be inches apart.  However, this is not catastrophic plate tectonics of which he is trying to dispute. For it is this theory that pretty much dominates creationism these days. It was first proposed by Dr. John Baumgardner, and is compatible with plate tectonics and continental drift theories. It also provides a mechanism that explains the source and recession of the global flood water.

Next Coyne argues in his book that creationists deny speciation. Many evolutionists like Coyne will claim that variants within an animal’s kind is proof of evolution. Again, Coyne using tactical but not realistic arguments. Creationists do not deny variants known as “Rapid Speciation” as there was designed information by God but also creationists do not believe variants of animals are proof of macro-evolution.

In order for animals to go from one kind to a totally different kind of animal requires an expansion of the gene pool with new traits. Interbreeding doesn’t create an expanded gene pool that would enable mice to turn into bats.

On origins, Coyne claims that chemical evolution is not a problem for evolution because it’s not part of  the theory of evolution so it doesn’t have to explain origins…lol…A well known publication called; Scientific American certainly thinks the origin of life from dead chemicals to living ones is part of evolution as it devoted articles on this very subject…

As you can see, evolution is not that strong at all as a hypothesis or a theory. It’s story telling. Coyne uses outdated arguments to make it easier on himself to dispute but doesn’t prove anything. He avoids certain arguments like origins because it’s way too hard to prove with all that massive uncertainty of explanations. However, one thing is for certain, evolution needs not to be true!

Did Evolution Predict Specialized Complexity?

Jerry Coyne, a dedicated defender of naturalism, and a skeptic of creationism and intelligent design declares in his book; “Why Evolution Is True”…

“The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger.”

The strongest evidence Jerry Coyne puts out there are fossils which in turn is supposed evidence that evolution indeed did predict specialized complexity that emerged from more primitive forms of life. Darwin himself argued that evolution of life came from a gradual sequence of simpler designs. It’s quite possible that Jerry also believes in evolution remaining the same as it wouldn’t skip a beat if we found an animal unchanged (which has been found) for supposedly millions of years.

Update: November 17, 2009

Researchers try to study various speed levels in the story…

“A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness, Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate — a pattern long considered the hallmark of ‘neutral’ or non-Darwinian evolution — even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection.”  Remarkably, “In some of these [fitness] landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.”

It just another component which adds on to the growing complexity concerning explanations of evolution because of failed predictions and observations not successful ones.

Keep in mind, evolution makes no prediction at all on specialized complexity emerging. When one digs deeper into the details (beyond the fossils) here is what evolutionists are finding as they search to prove their hypothesis…

“There is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

Evidence of more complexity than simplicity is showing up in the research which verifies the Bible rather than verifying the simple to complex story from evolutionary scientists.

Here is another admission, this coming from last year…

“It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human.”

Where is the evidence for simplicity from primitive life forms? It’s certainly not found in the genomes, is it? It’s a failed major expectation for those who believe in the story of evolution.  One can also question the fossil record as the way evolutionists see it because the data collected has to fit into a particular framework rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. If evolution was in fact a true hypothesis, the evidence would be showing up elsewhere as well.

So called Pro-religion Stance By The NCSE Is Criticized

Jerry Coyne who is a militant atheist is not too happy with the ecumenical movement in the realm between evolution and Christianity or religion in general. He is also very unhappy with these special interest groups who are not willing to attack religion directly. In his blog,  “Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down” he writes…

“Among professional organizations that defend the teaching of evolution, perhaps the biggest offender in endorsing the harmony of science and faith is The National Center for Science Education.”

“Although one of their officers told me that their official position on faith was only that “we will not criticize religions,” a perusal of their website shows that this is untrue.  Not only does the NCSE not criticize religion, but it cuddles up to it, kisses it, and tells it that everything will be all right.”

Thus he calls this a “pro-religion” stance! There is one thing I agree about Jerry Coyne, evolution and Christianity are not compatible with each other but I disagree using evolution or science in general as a tool to try and destroy Christianity and replace it with evolution. Treating evolutionary biologists as “priests” so the world has to follow their wordly viewpoint  is nonsense. In his opinion, if 92 percent of the biologists are atheists than we all should be atheists.

Here is the anti-religion stance which Coyne quotes as they attempt to tell Christians how to read and interpret the Bible…

Contrary to what biblical literalists argue, the Bible was not intended by its authors to teach us about science — which did not exist at the time the Hebrew oral traditions were set in writing as the Book of Genesis.

“The Bible does not teach us the literal truths that the earth is flat, or that a global flood once covered Mt. Everest, or that we inhabit a geocentric cosmos, or that the world was created as we now observe it in six solar days, or that species were specially created in their present form and have not changed since the days of creation.”

“Rather, the Bible can be read as a record of one particular people’s developing moral relationship with the God in whom they placed their trust. As such, it enshrines timeless ideals about the integrity of creation and human responsibility within that creation. For biblical believers, part of that responsibility is using the gift of human rationality to discover the exciting story of how life ― including human life ― has developed on the earth.”

Science which is the study of nature certainly did exist during the time of the Hebrews, and it was used by them to help improve the standard of living, to invent new things and so on.

But what the NCSE is trying to say by using the term “science” was “evolution” was invented during the time of the Hebrews so now they claim the Bible is outdated, never claimed of a global flood because the priests of evolution claim it couldn’t have happened on earth, perhaps on Mars they say or somewhere else in the Universe, but not on earth and lastly, evolution replaces God as the creator. Again, it’s the same mentality as Jerry Coyne who believes this is a pro-religion stance.

Jerry Coyne worships evolution, it’s as holy to him as the Bible is to Christians. But the NCSE are not pro-religion rather they are very much opposed to existence but only tolerate it more than Coyne does while trying to strip away like many cults do what the Bible actually means.