One of the worlds leading atheists finally conceded that there has to be some
Antony Flew, who became an atheist at 15, debated at Oxford in the 1950s. He
promoted atheism through prestigious works such as his landmark 1984 book, The
Presumption of Atheism.
Over time, Flew became a very successful atheist. Overall, he wrote ten books
against belief in God, as well as many other works. His works were among the
most widely reprinted in all of philosophy. One thing that helped him was that
many people assumed, without really looking into it, that science evidence
suggested that God does not exist.
So, why did he change his mind when he was eighty-one years old? Not
because he fears the eternal consequences of a lifetime spent promoting atheism.
He insists that he still doesn’t believe in heaven or hell. Rather, Flew was
convinced by modern science findings. He was amazed by the language that is
written into the DNA of every cell of each of our bodies.
He said, “What I think the DNA material has done is show
that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily
diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were
achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.”
Science does not support evolution in any way. In fact, science does more
to prove that evolution is not possible than the other way around.
Irreducible Complexity... Modern science has shown that some aspects of Darwinian theory
are actually impossible.
Take the Flagellum, for example. It is a molecular
machine that has 41 integrated parts of which it cannot function without a single one of
those parts. This machine has a very specific purpose and would be unable to function if even
one of it's parts were missing. The idea that it somehow performed this very specific function before it had
all of the necessary components defies logic...
In Darwins day and age, they did not have the tools or the ability to see
these machines, or have any idea how they work. And, in Darwins own words: "If it could
be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed
by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwin acknowledged that if someone identified a biological system that could not have been
constructed in incremental steps, over long periods of time, then his theory would be invalid.
Machines like the Flagellum cannot be explained away by Darwinian processes and, in fact, Darwins
failed predictions have falsified his own theory.
It's modern science that
has invalidated the theory of evolution! Anyone who clings to the centuries old
theory without considering the modern scientific facts which prove it false,
are simply proving that intelligence is not the foundation for their belief, but
that it's motivated by things other than science fact.
So, why do people choose to believe what science shows to be fallacy?
It should come as no surprise that adamant devotees of evolution often insist on
public assertions and unfounded statements, displays that sometimes hide the
real reason for the naturalistic (evolutionary) commitment. One such
unflinching devotee was the great agnostic philosopher, Aldous Huxley.
Late in his life he offered open discussion on this very issue when he wrote:
- Does the world as a whole possess the value and meaning that we constantly
attribute to certain parts of it (such as human beings and their works): and, if
so, what is the nature of that value and meaning? This is a question
which, a few years ago, I should not even have posed. For, like so many of
my contemporaries, I took it for granted that there was no meaning. This
was partly due to the fact that I shared a common belief that the scientific
picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole;
partly also to other, nonintellectual reasons. I had motives for not
wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and
was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.
- ...for myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of
meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The
liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and
economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom...
- ...justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that
the world had any meaning whatsoever.
Men who believe evolution typically do not want to believe in God; don't want
the world to have a meaning above the greatness of his own will. It's that
simple. Some don't want to admit that they are not the most important,
significant and intelligent species in the universe. Others, knowing our
own conceit, acknowledge that we probably aren't the most intelligent or
powerful but don't want to have to admit that there's something that knows us
better than we know ourselves. It is mans invention; created so we don't
have to worry about things like morality or feel guilty for our demented
pleasures and self indulgences. Who in the world wants to feel guilt, of
all things? It feels terrible! It's much more comfortable to assume
there is no meaning, no morals, no reason for guilt. After all, it is our
will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our magnificent
Naturalistic evolution concerns itself with no meaningful dignity or future
Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and the
idea that man is a unique rational being. Furthermore, if Darwinism is
correct, it is unlikely that any other support for the idea of human dignity
will be found.
But wait! There's no way the scientific community as a whole would let the
perverse ideas of these people become the basis for the "fact" of evolution we
teach our children in our schools!
Consider the admission of Dr. Lynn Margulis, who is recognized as a
knowledgeable member of the "establishment":
- More and more ... today's universities and professional societies guard their
knowledge. Collusively, the university biology curriculum, the textbook
publishers, the National Science Foundation review committees, the Graduate
Record examiners, and the various microbiological, evolutionary, and zoological
societies map out domains of the known and knowable; they distinguish required
from forbidden knowledge, subtly punishing the trespassers with rejection and
oblivion; they award the faithful liturgists by granting degrees and dispersing
funds and fellowships.
It follows naturally that the only way for evolution to triumph is to remove the
alternative! Look at the activities of organizations like the ACLU and
others. We don't want to confuse our poor children with phrases like "In
God we trust" or "Under God" or things as preposterous as the Ten Commandments.
We must acknowledge that we are supreme and that our infallible intelligence and
the power of our tremendous will is all that is needed to save us from
ourselves! God forbid we actually acknowledge a need for God!
Anything but God will do!
What you believe colors your whole life, your world view, your attitude, and how
you make moral decisions. Our view of the world is what guides us in
everything we do. Look at Hitler, Carl Marx, serial killers like Jeffrey
Dahmer, etc… They all believed in evolution and had no moral values so
they became truly evil.
Either there is a God, who is what He says He is, and did what He said He did,
or there is not. What do you believe? If we don't believe in God,
something like evolution has to take the place of our faith. We inherently
know the existence of God (Romans 1); there is no excuse! We are, after
all, created beings; created in the image of God. Deciding we don't
believe does not erase the fact that He does exist and that we will one day
answer to Him. We will never find an alternative that fits, either
scientifically or philosophically. There is no substitute for the truth.
The bible tells us that men will essentially become idiots when they refuse to
accept the simple truth of Gods word: Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to
be wise, they became fools.
2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers , walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of
his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were
from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,
that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed
with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.
Scientific American, September 1999; Scientists are more atheistic than ever
Be as willing to believe the bible by faith as you are to believe your science
text book without proof!
A final thought...
Natural Selection means that the best evolutionary form of a species is the one that survives, right?
If Natural Selection is true, and around 8% of the world is Atheist, and another 5% are non-religious but believe in some kind of universal spirit or higher power,
then Natural Selection is telling us that we should believe in God. 92% of the world believes in God, whether it's Jesus or another god.
So those who believe in Natural Selection, and don't believe in God, are those who Natural Selection will kill off.
Ironic, don'cha think?
I strongly urge anyone who has any interest in studying evolution vs. creation
to go to the following web site and get the Creation Seminar series of DVD’s.
You will be amazed at what science hides from the world…