Unethicalists

abstract achievement bright business
Photo by Jorge Jesus on Pexels.com

Evolutionists and atheistic scientists have an ethics problems.

First, and simplest, it has been pointed out many times by many authors that if we humans are indeed the product of molecules to man evolution, then there is no substantive or foundational reason that we should be ethical.  If we are merely the product of a billion generations of survival of the fittest, then our only ethical and moral imperative is to survive at all costs.  We may steal, rape, kill, abuse, and destroy, as long as it makes ourselves or our offspring more likely to survive.  That is the real true state of ethics for evolutionists.

Second, if atheists are correct and we are all here as the result of some cosmic accident, then there is no moral authority to our choices and decisions.  One moral choice is just as good as another.  Each person can argue for their own moral choices in the public square, but in reality, not one can claim to be “truth” and not one can be claimed to be false. If there is no first cause (God) for all things, or if the first cause of all things is an accident, a fluke, a meaningless big bang, then all subsequent choices are equally meaningless as well.

However (and even more importantly) I believe that atheists also have a very real and present ethical problem with today’s cosmology, because they have become such proponents for their latest viewpoints that they tell our youth that they “know” the universe is 14 billion years old.  They say they “know” evolution is true. The National Academy of Sciences states evolution is a fact. (1) Stephen Gould and others insist it is an established incontrovertible fact. (2)  Many modern Zoologists will tell anyone willing to listen that evolution is a firmly established fact.

Yet tens of thousands of scientists and educated persons see things differently.  The fossils that some use to “prove” evolution are just as easily used to prove creation.  The geological strata that some scientist say are “proof” of evolution, are seen by some other scientists as being far better evidence for a cataclysmic flood as described in Genesis.  So when you hear an atheist or evolutionist professing loudly and dramatically that we “know” the earth is 4.5 billion years old and “evolution is a proven fact”, it begins to appear that they are more interested in propaganda than in science.  They prefer talking points to honesty.

In fact, if we are open and honest, the unbiased discussion of scientific exploration of the universe that began under notable Christians such as Galileo, Newton, and Keppler, has been hijacked and side-tracked by modern atheists.  The six principles of scientific study have been violated on numerous fronts by atheists who place their distaste God above their scientific integrity. Why, because they have stated a priori, that they disavow any possibility of a Creator.  But what about their version of “creation”?

Lets examine the Big Bang in light of the Six Principles of Scientific Thinking.

  1. Have important alternatives for the finding been excluded?  No one has, (or at least in this life) is ever capable of excluding the possibility that God Created the universe.
  2. Can we be sure that A causes B?  No honest scientist is SURE that the big bang occurred, or when or how or why it might have occurred.  In their own writings we can find much evidence to support this. So we cannot  be sure that the Big Bang caused the formation of the universe.
  3. Falsifiability.  Can the theory be disproved?  Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured, it is also true that it cannot be disproved.
  4. Can the principle be replicated in other studies.  Of course not.  No one can replicate the Big Bang.  If it occurred (and I will later illustrate why this was impossible) it occurred once only.  Never again to be “recreated” by humankind.
  5. Is the evidence as strong as the claim?  The Big Bang Proponents claim that nothing existed (not even the concept of existence, or time or matter) and then there was some sort of a quantum fluctuation in the nothing, and “bang” everything appeared.  Nonsense. Nothing plus nothing or multiplied by nothing equals nothing.
  6.  Occams razor. Does a simpler explanation fit the data just as well.  Yes.  God created the heavens and the earth.  Simple.

So on all six principles of scientific study, it can be argued that the Big Bang fails!  It turns out you have to accept either viewpoint on FAITH.  And at least to my relatively unbiased interpretation of the facts, it takes a lot more FAITH to believe the atheist story, than the Bible story.  And yet the atheists persist in their propaganda campaign to brainwash an entire generation of youth.

 

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

(1) Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? US National Academy of Sciences 2018

(2) Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37

(See also blogs on “Differing with Dawkins” and “Bang… and Nothing”)

Published by

evolutioncreation1

Emergency Room Physician. Student of science and student of scripture. Defending truth in a post-truth society. I believe that Truth exists, and I believe it is our duty and privilege to seek it out, amidst ignorance, frivolity, and misconceptions.

13 thoughts on “Unethicalists”

  1. “Since the Theory of the big bang is purely hypothetical, and was not seen, and cannot be proven or measured,”
    Thats not what Theory means. An idea cannot be both an hypothesis And a Theory. They are different, although related types of idea.
    The time that the Big Bang occured Can be measured. The measurements prove that it happened. You ought to improve your understanding of the scientific method so you can avoid mistakes like these. Otherwise, your arguments fall flat.

    Like

    1. So I assume you think you know the actual value of hubble constant, and you can account for the lack of a proper red shift from Andromeda? And I assume you know why 90 to 95% of the universal mass is undetectable? These things are necessary if you want to explain to me how you “know” that the big bang occurred and the “know” the age of the universe.

      Like

      1. Yes, there is no red shift from M31 because it’s approaching.
        Many low quality science books and sites make the same mistake with types of red-shift. They confuse doppler red-shift with expansion red-shift. Be cautious with that type of error.

        Like

      2. Local motion, just like we see moving objects on earth. Things move.
        M31 is close enough for its cosmic red-shift to be less than its local motion. Distant objects red shift more, M31 is not distant enough.

        Like

      3. Part 2: I think you’re asking about the nature of knowledge here aren’t you? I don’t ‘want to explain’ the big bang to you. You are grown up enough to read up on the subject yourself, I only hope that you use better quality sources that those you referenced in your various blog posts. You really can’t criticise scientific discoveries using the appalling low quality sources you have talked about before.

        Like

      4. You “don’t want to explain” it to me because you have no idea of either the formulas necessary, or of the greater picture of how the galaxies and nebulae were formed. You criticize what you don’t understand. Each of the concepts I have written about is fully explained in writings by PhD level chemists, biochemists, and physicists. But because they don’t match what you were force fed in HS, you automatically reject them out of hand as “unscientific”. But what is really unscientific is the approach of scientism, which states the universe created itself. Read just a little about the impossibility of evolution and perhaps you will see the light. Blessings in your journey.
        As to low quality sources… you are correct that I need to use more primary source documentation. That’s just very time consuming. If you have a specific question I will proved a number of primary sources.

        Like

      5. You know nothing of my maths skills or my education in general. I was not ‘force fed in HS’, the studies I did were my choice, I got my educatioal qualificatiins becaure I wanted to. Moreover, I studied for a further 5 years after compulsory school education was over.
        You have no right to make claims like the above.

        Like

      6. I hope you will not misunderstand or take personally my comment about being force-fed in High School. The point is that high school students are offered only one option in all of their scientific studies. That option is the atheistic option and by taking creation off the table entirely you have to deny every aspect of science that points to Creation. By definition when science points towards creation as the most likely cause that is taken off the table and only the less Worthy and often less scientific options remain.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s