Five things EVERY person should know about scientism.

close up of text
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on Pexels.com

First, scientism is philosophy masquerading as science.  It is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.  If you are a scientist, you may not be enough of a philosopher to recognize its blatant falsehood.  If you are a philosopher you might believe you do not know enough about science to refute its claims.  If you are an average man or woman on the street you might just accept Scientism, thinking “surely all those academic people can’t be wrong.” Nevertheless, Scientism has never been proven true by ANY method, let alone the scientific method.

Second, scientism refutes itself.  You don’t have to be “smart enough” to refute it!  It is SELF-REFUTING!  Scientism claims that the only things we can know about the universe are those things which have been tested and proven scientifically.  Scientism has not been tested or proven scientifically.  This is not only irrational.  It is UNSCIENTIFIC.  True scientists, for example, do not reject (out of hand with no evidence) the possibility that the universe originated at the hand of an omnipotent Creator.  To do so is unscientific.

Third, scientism causes people to reject their faith.  Faith, religion, and Christianity are viewed as unscientific. If you believe the false tenets of scientism, you are suspicious of everything except that which scientism promotes.  You may believe, for instance, in evolution, although it is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, and has been proven scientifically and statistically and biologically and biochemically impossible.  But you will not believe in the possibility of an Omnipotent Creator God, which is the most probable and likely and reasonable explanation for the universe and the wonder of life.

Fourth, many things are better and more rationally explained by belief in a Creator than by science.  J P Moreland in Ten Things You Should Know about Scientism, says there are at least 5 things science cannot explain but theism can:

  1. The origin of the universe.
  2. The origin of the fundamental laws of nature.
  3. The fine-tuning of the universe.
  4. The origin of consciousness.
  5. The existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. (1)

Fifth, a firm, logical, scientific, and philosophically sound exposure of scientism may save more souls than thousands of evangelists.  This is because, at this point in history, so many of the benefits of science are easily seen, and are so much depended on, that much of society has come to believe that even sloppy science is better than meticulous faith.   This is of course, not true.  In fact, sloppy science is not science at all, and it is only by the rigorous application of the scientific method that scientific advances are made.

But Scientism is not rigorous.  Scientism is not science.  Scientism is not even good philosophy.  It is by all definitions, and at all levels, a personally and societally destructive phenomenon.  It must be addressed by pastors, real scientists, and real philosophers at every opportunity and exposed for the false teaching it really is.

 

(1) https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-scientism/?utm_source=Crossway+Marketing&utm_campaign=630f94d382-20180922+-+General+-+Scientism+and+Secularism&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0275bcaa4b-630f94d382-290916097

(For more see “Differing with Dawkins” and “Lemmings”)

Micro-evolution under the Microscope.

technology lens laboratory medical
Photo by Public Domain Pictures on Pexels.com

1. We know that the formation of the universe from nothing was impossible. Even Marcelo Gleiser, writing for NPR admits this;

It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can’t exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do.(w)

2. We know that spontaneous generation of life was and is impossible, or as Michael Denton wrote;

“Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.”(x)

3. We have established that evolution itself is impossible, as written by Hoyle;

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it …. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution.”

But what if all three of these assumptions were wrong? What if everything appeared out of nothing, for no reason, and formed itself into life against impossible odds, and evolved into multiple magnificent and self replicating organisms.  What then?

Even then evolution is impossible.

Why? Because Proteins have shapes.  Proteins are fascinating, complicated, three- dimensional molecules that function as a result of their shape.  The basic shape of the protein allows it to present a particular molecule, or reactive agent, at a particular 3 dimensional site, exposed in such a way that it interacts, usually somewhat like a lock and key, with another protein or membrane in the cell so that a chemical process is either turned on or off (in the case of enzymes), or a portion of the cell is built. Douglas Axe showed evolution to be impossible when “He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds.”(1)

If one alters the DNA by some mechanism (radiation for instance) and the DNA now produces a slightly different protein, then the 3D structure of the protein is altered, and it does not become a new functional protein with a different and “better” use in the cell or the organism.  It becomes a useless, broken, messy, senseless system, producing meaningless and often damaging or fatal proteins.  (Lou Gehrigs,  Alzheimers, Cystic Fibrosis).  For example, according to Cystic Fibrosis News today, “The development of CF results from a misfolded or improperly functioning protein known as the cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR).”(2)

There are, on the other hand, NO (none, nada, zero) examples of enzymes or proteins which have been altered as a result of genetic damage to form a new, improved, or more functional state. The oft cited example of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is NOT such an example.  According to Munita  and Arias in Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance, “Classically, bacteria acquire external genetic material through three main strategies, i) transformation (incorporation of naked DNA), ii) transduction (phage mediated) and, iii) conjugation (bacterial “sex”).” (3)  In each case the genetic material ALREADY EXISTED and no new protein or altered gene was required. In fact, the path to antibiotic resistance typically involves a loss of genetic material from damaged DNA. The bacterium is no longer as healthy and effective and rapidly growing as it was before, but it has a side benefit of being resistant to a particular antibiotic.

 

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

 

(1)   evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_random_muta/

(2)  Stephen Shannon, Cystic Fibrosis News Today, March 12, 2015.

(3) Nancy Darrall PhD,  in six days, Master Books, pp. 190-193.

(4) Munita, J and Arias C., /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888801/

(w)

(x) Denton, Michael Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986 pp. 249-250

(y) Fred Hoyle (1981) “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, Nov. 12, p. 148

 

(For more see also “What is Natural Selection” and “Natural Selection is Magic”)

 

“A knife in the back?”

blade folding knife penknife
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

As explained by Dr. Geoff Downes Ph D, “Consider finding a dead body in the park.  Did the person die from natural causes, or was some other factor involved?  If you find a knife in the back, then it is logical to assume that some outside intelligence was involved.  However, if you start by assuming that the death occurred from natural causes, then you can never arrive at the correct conclusion.”(1)

The current status of scientific study of evolution is like a policeman who does not believe in murder.  Imagine an entire police department which operated under the belief that all events occur only as a result of natural causes.

The call comes in of a body found in the woods.  All the investigators go to the scene and find the body, with a large butcher knife protruding from the back and blood everywhere at the scene.  The campsite shows signs of a struggle with dozens of broken chairs and utensils.  The tent is collapsed with supports broken and fabric torn.  Of course, when the report is issued, the cause of death is “Natural causes.”

So it is with modern atheistic scientists and their evaluation of the origin of life.  Since they have already ruled out the possibility of divine intervention, they will naturally only find (or evaluate or report) evidence of spontaneous so-called “natural forces”.  They will state that the universe created itself from nothing, using terminology that sound convincing and scientific, but mean nothing.  They will lecture on evolution and how “natural selection drives evolution” and how some “primordial soup” was struck by lightning and life magically appeared.

No amounts of facts can convince the policeman that a murder occurred. They believe only in “natural causes”  No amount of facts… scientific, philosophical, biochemical, embryological, astronomical, archeological, or otherwise, can convince the atheistic scientist that creation is the result of a Creator, that life is the result of “and God said.” (2)  The atheists scientific community has as one of the tenets of belief that there is no God.  Therefore when any scientific discovery, or trend, or accumulation of evidence points to a creator, it is summarily rejected. Why?  Not because it is unscientific, but because it fundamentally disagrees with their underlying position.  The position of belief that “there is no God” is a statement of faith.  No more and no less than the statement of belief that “God created everything.”

As a scientist, then, it should not be surprising that there are tens of thousands of persons, highly educated in the sciences, with PhD, and MD and other advanced degrees behind their names, who absolutely believe that God formed the universe and established its laws.  They believe God created all life and the cells, structures, organelles and DNA within the cell. And they are no less scientific or educated than the atheists.

Atheistic science has no credentials on the matter of origins, when by its own mission statement it has excluded the most likely cause of all things, God.  It is completely illogical circular reasoning to state, “I do not believe in God, therefore I will not interpret any type of scientific evidence as pointing to God, therefore there is no God based on my scientific findings.”

 

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

(1) Geoff Downs PhD, In six days Master Books Publishing, p.333.

(2) Genesis 1:20 NIV

(For more on this see “Individualism” and “Operational vs Historical Science”)

The Coming Revival

black and white cemetery christ church
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

For the atheistic scientists who might read this, my apologies if I digress for a moment.  You may omit reading this post with my permission.  It will only cause you to wail and gnash your teeth.  Most of the site is intentionally kept free of religion and philosophy.  Nevertheless, the absence of God, religion, and philosophy, as has been explained by many philosophers, is in itself both a philosophy and a religion.

As such, I cannot help but wonder what society might be like when the “great lie” of evolution is fully exposed.When society at large comes to the realization that they have been misled and lied to for the last fifty years by proponents of Scientism masquerading as scientists, I believe there will exist a moment in time for all to actually see and marvel at the magnificence and grandeur of Creation.

At that moment, under the guidance of the thousands of faithful scientist who love God and worship Him in faithfulness a new and wonderful opportunity will be present.  Archeology will show the proof of the Bible as told in the OT with thousands of evidences of ancient societies exactly as the Bible describes.  Paleontology will no longer push the lie of evolution but will show the true history of the Biblical flood.

Faithful, God-fearing teachers (who have for decades feared to speak the truth in their classrooms) will suddenly be free to tell their wards they are NOT blobs of protoplasm in an accidental universe.  Children will be free to praise and worship their Lord and God in wonder and sing his praises in purity and innocence.  Youth will no longer be inundated with obscenity and pornography in their age of innocence, but will  learn of the Lord and His great love for them.

Ministers will be confronted with congregations overflowing the sanctuaries and listening from the streets.  Meetings will be held at football fields and sports stadiums.  Places accustomed to housing rowdy, drunken crowds at music festivals will be filled with tens of thousands lifting their voices in praise to the God who created the universe.  People will be “drunk in the Spirit” without touching a drop of alcohol.

Like Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings chapter 18, the pseudo-scientific prophets of Scientism will be exposed for the frauds they are (see posts on Unethicalists, and Science vs Scientism), and millions of people trapped in lifestyles of drugs, and sexual promiscuity, and alternative lifestyles will be freed to worship the true God and be healed by His mighty power.  People who have sought peace and healing where it cannot be found will discover the power of healing present in the Holy Spirit.  People of every nation and tongue and tribe will worship in spirit and in truth, and millions will go to Zion to Worship the One True God.

 

Isaiah 60:1-5 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

(For more see blog entitled “Scoffers”)

Ancient. Where is the proof?

20180826_200826

The determination of just how old the universe might be is a daunting and complicated endeavor.  As a student of science, I will readily admit that in many ways it appears that the universe might be very old.  If we assume that everything we now see has existed since the beginning, and nothing has changed.  If we assume that God did not create everything, as the Bible suggests, a few thousand years ago (which is the basis for current atheistic science).  If we assume that we could know the ratio of the so called parent and daughter isotopes in various rocks when they were created (we cannot). If we assume that the light from the stars is not being affected by anything (such as the 95% of the universe we cannot measure) and they are therefore exactly as far away as they appear, then one would easily be led to believe that the universe is quite old.  (1)

However, Dr. John Baumgardner, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and he clearly believes the evidence does NOT indicate an old earth or an old universe.  He states “Most people… including most scientists, are not aware of the systematic and glaring conflict between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods for dating…”(2)  He notes the vast differences that result when using different chemical methods of dating.  For example, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates found in the zircons of Pre-cambrian granite, the age of the fossil layer is only a few thousand years old. Yet Uranium in the same crystals gives an entirely different (and much older) result.

Dr. Baumgardner notes that the present rate of uplift for the Himalayan mountains and the rate of ocean mineralization also point to a young age for the earth. In fact at their current rate of uplift, if these mountains are a mere 1 million years old, they should be 40 miles high!  And of course, the presence of unmineralized proteins in dinosaur bones from many locations should place a limit of a few thousand years at most on the age of the bones. (3)

Then he tackles the thorny issue of light from distant stars. This is generally thought to show the universe is billions of years old. Although it involves principles such as cosmic inflation, general relativity, and the place of the earth in the universe, it  may be said that Dr. Baumgardner, and many other scientists, believe that there is no reason to reject the possibility of a young universe, because there are far too many unexplained variables to compute any certain age at all.  (See blog entitled Bang… and nothing.)  “If, instead, the cosmos has the earth near its center, then its early history is radically different from that of all big-bang models.”(4) In fact, the massive distribution of matter near the center of any exploding model of the universe could alter the time gradient drastically, slowing time almost to a standstill (relative to the other/outer areas of expansion) if earth were indeed near the center.

We can imagine the possibility that as written in the Creation Science website, “factors combine in various ways: 1. A decrease in the speed of light. 2. An expansion of space. 3. Large concentrations of dark matter with each galaxy. 4. Dark matter concentrated near the center of the universe. 5. Stars dimmer earlier in their history. 6. An age of the universe somewhat larger than 10,000 years. In addition, there may be other factors that we are not aware of. But even the factors we know about seem sufficient to explain the observed universe within a short time frame.”(1)  All this being said, there is no reason to rule out a young earth based on science.  The Bible story is no less believable now than at the time it was written.

Yet one more point bears mention here.  Most atheistic scientists would discount it.  (See Unethicalists for reasons why).  Nevertheless, for a Christian it makes logical sense.  We know that a cell cannot operate without all its parts (DNA, RNA, nucleus, organelles, cell membrane, proteins, etc.)  No part of the cell will function meaningfully or reproduce without all the others. Therefore isn’t it logical that all cells were created intact, fully functional at the moment of their creation?  Likewise Mankind is not functional without the brain, liver, eyes, heart, skin, and all organs functioning.  So it is easy to believe that Adam was a fully formed, functional, adult human being at the moment of his creation.

Is it not equally possible, in fact likely, that an infinitely wise, infinitely powerful Creator God would create a universe fully functional from the moment of its creation? What good are the stars in the beautiful sky if Adam will not seen them for millions of years?  Why create them at all? Creating light in transit is not a difficult thing for God.  It is only a difficult thing for us!  Yet who are we (our most brilliant scientists still do not understand the nature of light itself, and cannot tell if is is a particle or wave… so they say it is both).  Who are we to tell God how He should order his new and wondrous creation?

 

(1) Is The Universe Young?  https://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/universe.html

(2)  in six days, john r. baumgardner, Master Books, p 234.

(3) Ibid, p. 237.

(4) Ibid p. 238.

Bang… and nothing

img_20170214_115107928

Problems with the “Big Bang” are overwhelming.  Yet we are told by supposed “scientists” that it is an established fact.  What utter nonsense.

Problem #1.  The vacuum catastrophe.  Those who would like to create something out of nothing have always existed. The perpetual motion machine has always been a dream.  If you read a little bit about the big bang, you will soon find that it is nothing more than another version of the perpetual motion machine. Creating everything out of nothing. Someone wrote a formula (Quantum Field Theory) that says there would be vast amounts of energy available if there was actually a state of nothingness.  Someone else recalculated the formula and it turns out the value of vacuum energy was actually 10¹²⁰ times less than the prediction made by Quantum Field Theory! Which, it turns out, is less than nothing.  This can also be referred to as a cosmological constant problem, which is explained on the Red Shift Academy website as follows: (1)

So, a large vacuum energy presents a huge problem for 
General Relativity because the absolute amount of vacuum
energy has a real physical meaning.  In fact, the 
Cosmological constant and the vacuum energy differ by 
about an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude!  This 
is the infamous "Cosmological constant problem" which 
remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of physics
in the modern era.

Problem #2.  95% dark matter? Astronomers now calculate that the universe consists of 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy. (1) The rest is made up of WIMPS (Weakly Interactive Massive Particles).  What are WIMPS? Can they be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or measured in any way… no.  How do we know they exist?  We don’t.   Why do the astronomers suggest they are there?  Because the same formulas on which they base the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe say they MUST be there.  Or else the formulas are wrong!  (Now there’s an idea!)  As Scott Dodelson (a cosmologist and the head of the Department of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University) states on the site Space.com, ” we’re not sure our current way of thinking is correct because it essentially requires us to make stuff up, namely dark matter and dark energy. It could be that we really are just a month away from a scientific revolution that will upend our whole understanding about cosmology and does not require these things.” (2)

Problem #3.  In the first stages of the universe there was no reason for cohesion (the forces of dispersion were much stronger).  This means scientists can’t explain galaxy formation.  Just like Problem #1 (Big bang should not have happened), Problem #3 means the Galaxies had no reason to form.  Picture any explosion of any size in any situation, and you will see what this means.  If something is blown apart into tiny fragments by some great energy, the fragments travel at great speeds getting further apart from each other and from the center, until at some point they are overcome by some other force or energy.  In the case of the Big Bang, there were no other forces in existence.  There was no other energy in existence.

Problem #4.  The Big Bang clearly violates 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Every counter to this is ineffectual, or requires “special circumstances”, or assumes some other plane of existence was also present.

Problem #5. The Big Bang also contradicts the Second law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which states that everything we see or measure in the universe is gradually “running down” or progressing from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy.  The entire universe and all of creation must be considered as a single “closed system” that is just chock full of energy in the form of stars and heat and motion and light, just to name a few.  The energy had to come from somewhere.  It could not create itself (See Problem #4) and it could not wind itself up to higher levels (Problem #5). As Professor John Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. in aeronautics puts it, “One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.”(2)

Problem #6.  The Big Bang requires an early expansion rate that was at speeds greater than the speed of light.  The very same scientists who claim that they can know the age of the Earth and the universe based on current measured rates for the speed of light and the decay of isotopes have a HUGE problem here.  They admit that immediately after the BB, the expansion rate of the universe had to be much greater than the speed of light.  This means they are happy to suspend the scientific laws of the universe when it fits their purposes and preferred theories.  Just not when it involves Creation.

Problem #7.  If there really was a Big Bang, then equal amounts of matter and anti matter should have been expected.  Yet we find no such evidence.  Many theories and solutions have been proposed, but none  answer the question.  All require some “other” force or condition.  In other words, astronomers and scientists have no explanation for why the universe we live in contains only electrons and no positrons.  Only quarks and no anti-quarks.  Only protons and no anti-protons.

Problem #8.  With all the supposedly scientific precision of the calculations on which the age of the universe rest, no one even knows the value of the Hubble constant!  Hubble’s initial calculations for the value for the expansion rate (Hubble Constant) was approximately 500 km/s/Mpc or about 160 km/sec per million-light-years. This would have meant the Universe was only 2 billions years old. Others have calculated the constant to be as low as 2 km/s/Mpc.  The “current” accepted value is generally assumed to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc.   In fact some now call it the Hubble Parameter rather than the Hubble constant.   This was all supposedly put to rest in about 2008 with the latest accepted value.  We shall see…

  1. http://www.redshiftacademy.com/index.php/redshift/topic/the_vacuum_catastrophe
  2.  John M. Cimbala, in six days, p. 203, Masterbooks.com.
  3. “Big Bang Theory — An Overview.” All About Science. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
  4. Space.com, New Map of Dark Matter Puts the Big Bang Theory on Trial (Kavli Roundtable) By Adam Hadhazy | 
  5. “Cambridge Cosmology: Hot Big Bang Model.” Cambridge University. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
  6. Castellanos, Joel. “The Shape of Space.” NonEuclid. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~joel/NonEuclid/space.html
  7. Felder, Gary. “Beyond the Big Bang: Inflation and the Very Early Universe.” North Carolina State University. 2002.
  8. “The Geometry of the Universe.” Astronomy 162. University of Tennessee. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/geometry.html
  9. Marmet, Paul. “Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death.” 21st Century, Science and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1990. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

 

Individualism

person with body painting
Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Pexels.com

Sometimes it just comes down to who you want to call God.  Do you want to believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator (One who might have rules and deserve worship)? Or would you rather put yourself in the place of God?  Both metaphysics and observation of reality suggest that we are sentient beings. They also suggest that we have choices in life.  I would propose that an infinitely wise God, in order to create beings who might truly CHOOSE to love Him, would create a universe in which they had the option NOT to love Him.  In fact they might have the option to despise Him, ridicule Him, and even deny His very existence.  Such is our very society. We get to choose.

David Foster WallaceThis Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, writes,Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.”

I see evidence of the truth of that statement daily when I work in the ER.  I have seen thousands of people who chose to worship sex,  drugs, or alcohol, and I have seen the havoc and destruction it has wreaked in their lives. We all know of persons who worshiped popularity, and were crushed when it vanished.  Some have worshiped themselves, through vanity, and many have slipped into despair as their power, looks, or influence faded.

One of the things that offends many atheists is the idea of a personal God.  They are often critical of the idea that God could be described as a “jealous God”.  Richard Dawkins wrote, in the God Delusion,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins has been quoted thousands of times, and hailed as a hero for his bold words by those who are offended at the thought of a Supreme Being.  (See also blog posts on Science and Scientism,  and Differing with Dawkins).

On the other hand, C.S. Lewis wrote, in the Problem of Pain,

You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect,’ is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.” (1)

And somewhere, supposedly hiding from you in this vast and beautiful universe is the REAL God. Or perhaps he really is all around you.  But the point is that you, personally, get to choose in this life whether to believe in him or to love and worship Him.  You see, all though history, God has allowed persons to either believe in Him, or to worship other Gods. History is littered with gods (small g) who have been relegated to the trash heaps of time; Baal, Osiris, Marduk, or the entire Roman Pantheon of gods.

Today, we still have the same choice.  Do you worship the god of science (scientism)?  Or do you worship the Creator God of the Universe who has given us the Bible?  It is an important choice.  Choose wisely.