Atheist biologists would have you believe that evolutionary processes are mindless, and purposeless. But the problem for such a claim is that survival is a goal or purpose. There is simply no way around this. If evolution is truly mindless and purposeless, why does it favor survival over non-survival?
Physicist Amit Goswami writes in his book Creative Evolution. A Physicist’s Resolution Between Darwinism and Intelligent Design:
“The Darwinian theory of… Read More
God and unicorns: A favorite atheist claim is that belief in God is akin to belief in unicorns. But, interestingly enough, the history of belief in unicorns has a crucial lesson to teach us about atheism: It is not sufficient for atheists to merely reject God as an ultimate explanation for such things as the origin of life and the origin of the universe. The atheist must provide his or… Read More
The real world provides a laboratory to test worldviews. The problem for atheism is that it fails in the laboratory of the real world. For example, atheism insists that we are nothing but mindless robots made of meat. But atheists cannot live as if this were actually true.
According to atheist biologist Richard Dawkins,
“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as… Read More
Why cite God as an explanation when random evolutionary processes do the work of creating life from non-living matter just fine?
This is a core atheist argument which presents itself over and over again in atheist books and online forums. But, unfortunately for atheists, randomness is entirely useless as an explanation for the origin of life.
The sentence, “I flew to Chicago” becomes meaningless and useless once a single letter… Read More
The more time one spends debating atheists, the more often one will encounter the argument that atheism is just a “non-belief” in God, and therefore does not need to be logically defended.
Andy Bannister humorously highlights the absurdity of this idea by telling a story about a guy who denies the existence of the nation of Sweden (in his book The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist):
“You think that my denial… Read More
Dean Overman writes in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization :
“Conundrum: if logical thinking is an accident, is it trustworthy? Or, to modify the enigma, is it probable that accidents will accurately describe other previous accidents? The concept that the universe and our existence were the products of accidents means that all our thinking is merely the accidental result of accidents. But if your thoughts and my thoughts are… Read More
God and unicorns: A favorite atheist claim is that belief in God is akin to belief in unicorns. But, interestingly enough, the history of belief in unicorns has a crucial lesson to teach us about atheism: It is not sufficient for atheists to merely reject God as an ultimate explanation for such things as the origin of life and the origin of the universe. The atheist must provide his or… Read More
Why cite God as an explanation when random evolutionary processes do the work of creating life from non-living matter just fine?
This is a core atheist argument which presents itself over and over again in atheist books and online forums. But, unfortunately for atheists, randomness is entirely useless as an explanation for the origin of life.
The sentence, “I flew to Chicago” becomes meaningless and useless once a single letter… Read More