Misusing Science: A Look at the God Debunkers

I’ve been spending a lot of time Stumbling lately, and while generally I’m presented with a great variety of funny sites, I’ve come across quite a few “atheist apologetics” sites — sites which either poke fun at Christian apologetics or which attempt to seriously deal with them.

The vast majority of them have this in common: Christians are presented as idiots who do not understand how the world works.

Great lengths may be undertaken at these sites to present and explain the scientific method, basic scientific principles, and so on.

I’m not an idiot. I’ll even go so far as to say I understand the science presented on atheist apologetics sites better than they often appear to understand the Christian theology they’re elsewhere mocking or attempting to refute.

I understand that the universe appears to be expanding, that reproduction doesn’t result in perfect genetic propagation (mutation happens), and that water, no matter how much one may desire it, simply does not turn into wine.

None — I say again, none — of that is an adequate argument against Christianity.

Science may show — repeatedly and demonstrably — that man cannot walk upon the seas. It may show that regardless of how many garments are touched, problems with bleeding do not instantly heal. Based on available material evidence and logical and/or mathematical deduction, the big bang and macroevolution may very well be the only acceptable choices.

But God is the wild card. With Him, all things are possible. If you want to conclude that God does not exist — or does not exist in the form of the Christian God — that’s fine. The methods you are using by nature cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Science deals with the natural, the material. You can’t use the rules of comma placement to prove or disprove that Nike’s logo is effective; likewise, you cannot use the rules which determine how the physical world operates to determine whether or not a supernatural world exists or how it would operate if it did. It is supernatural for that very reason.

Again, though, I’m not an idiot. I accept that many of Christianity’s claims are falsifiable. After all, science can show that miracles do not happen, and thus a great deal of the Bible is readily debunked. And I expect atheists to accept that and abide by that. They’re not violating their worldviews by doing so, nor are they making use of “bad science.”

Yet God is the wild card. By (super)nature, He & His actions are not falsifiable. When atheists try, they are showing themselves to be the fools which God declares them to be.

I implore such atheists to stop misusing science in their perpetual quest to debunk the idea of God. I can think of few greater exercises in futility!

18 thoughts on “Misusing Science: A Look at the God Debunkers”

  1. Hello,

    You wrote, The vast majority of them have this in common: Christians are presented as idiots who do not understand how the world works.

    When the large majority of Christians reject firmly established facts such as evolution or the age of the earth, then you have to wonder if such sites don’t have a point.

    You wrote, But God is the wild card. With Him, all things are possible.

    Are you not aware of the claims that the Christian god intervenes in the natural world, through such things as creating the earth, miracles, and answered prayer? When we test such claims, we find they are without basis.

    But I suppose, since “with Him, all things are possible”, that the Christian God DOES intervene, but covers his tracks very well with discomfirming evidence.

    It seems you’d consign the Christian god to the supernatural realm only, but then, you essentially eliminate the Bible. There’s a word for people who do that: deists.

  2. When the large majority of Christians reject firmly established facts such as evolution or the age of the earth, then you have to wonder if such sites don’t have a point.

    Most of us don’t reject firmly established facts. The world is round, and we know it. Likewise, mutation does occur. All of that was mentioned in the original post above.

    Are you not aware of the claims that the Christian god intervenes in the natural world, through such things as creating the earth, miracles, and answered prayer? When we test such claims, we find they are without basis.

    But I suppose, since “with Him, all things are possible”, that the Christian God DOES intervene, but covers his tracks very well with discomfirming evidence.

    The Judeo-Christian God confounds the wise and gives knowledge to the foolish. To those who have no desire to believe in Him, He actively hides the truth from.

    In other words, secular science’s findings that God has no place in the Universe is perfectly consistent with Christian theology. Those scientists are finding exactly what God wants them to.

    It is only when the miracle of the new birth occurs that one’s eyes are opened and heart is made anew. Only then can the existence of God be so clearly manifest.

    It seems you’d consign the Christian god to the supernatural realm only, but then, you essentially eliminate the Bible. There’s a word for people who do that: deists.

    No, I’m not consigning Him to the supernatural realm only. Rather, I’m saying that even His activities in our realm defy science. Science requires repeatability, yet God is not at experiments’ beck & call.

  3. Most of us don’t reject firmly established facts.

    According to a 2007 Gallup poll, as much as 66% of the US population believe “the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”.

    Is it a firmly established fact that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

    To those who have no desire to believe in Him, He actively hides the truth from…Those scientists are finding exactly what God wants them to.

    So the Christian god plays a game of hide-and-seek? Got it.

    I suppose, then, that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old and was created just as Genesis describes. Evidence to the contrary is “foolishness” and meant to confound.

    No, I’m not consigning Him to the supernatural realm only. Rather, I’m saying that even His activities in our realm defy science.

    The Christian god is such a trickster! No wonder the majority of the world’s population has never believed in him. There must be limited space in heaven, else why consign this majority to hell?

  4. Allow me to jump in here for a moment, Rick. :D

    Dear Bob, you claim that Christians reject “firmly established facts.” But what exactly leads you to believe that such things as evolution or the age of the earth, to use your own examples, are “firmly established facts?” I mean, it’s a nice claim and all, but what evidence can you give to support this claim?

    For example, how could you prove to me that evolution really occured? If my understanding of science is correct, I should be able to test your hypothesis repeatedly and get the same results. But, you see, the problem with evolution is that one cannot test it. By definition, evolution is the random mutation of a certain species, and any attempt to test something that is random nullifies the possibility of randomness. In which case, I dare say evolution is, scientifically speaking, an unproven proposition, and nothing more.

    Is it a firmly established fact that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

    If you would bear with me for a moment….

    Assuming you have read the account given in Genesis, you would know that when God created man, He created man as an adult. There was no sperm meeting an egg, which developed into a zygote, then embryo, then fetus, and eventually into an infant, child, adolescent, and finally an adult.

    In the same way, it is feasible that God created the world as an “adult,” if you will. While the earth appears to be much older than 10,000 years old, and would by all evidence be more than ten thousand years old, it is simply less than ten thousand, based on our standpoint today. Go back roughly ten thousand years, and the world would not have existed. Until, “in the beginning…”

    No wonder the majority of the world’s population has never believed in him.

    God has given us ample evidence of His existence, firstly in the creation of the world, secondly in the prophets and apostles, and lastly in His Son Jesus Christ.

    There must be limited space in heaven, else why consign this majority to hell?

    Perhaps it is because they sinned and are entirely undeserving of Heaven. But no, that can’t be right. It’s just too obvious of an answer. There must be some deeper meaning behind it.

  5. Dear Jus, nice of you to jump in for Rick!

    Dear Bob, you claim that Christians reject “firmly established facts.” But what exactly leads you to believe that such things as evolution or the age of the earth, to use your own examples, are “firmly established facts?” I mean, it’s a nice claim and all, but what evidence can you give to support this claim?

    Fair question!

    Age of the earth

    Evolution as a fact

    For example, how could you prove to me that evolution really occured?

    Oh, I cannot do that. You have a misunderstanding of proof as it relates to science.

    While the earth appears to be much older than 10,000 years old, and would by all evidence be more than ten thousand years old, it is simply less than ten thousand, based on our standpoint today.

    I don’t find this feasible at all. In fact, I find it plain loony (see my “God is such a trickster!” comment above).

    God has given us ample evidence of His existence, firstly in the creation of the world, secondly in the prophets and apostles, and lastly in His Son Jesus Christ.

    1) “Creation” can be explained without a creator, and the gaps in our knowledge are being filled in all the time, relegating a deity to the shadows. Why would your god create this unimaginably immense universe, and populate it with this mere spec of a planet?

    2) Where are these prophets and apostles?

    3) Jesus may have existed, but the stories told of him in the gospels and other literature are almost certainly fiction. Extraordinary claims (rising from the dead) require extraordinary evidence, and that standard is far from being met.

    Is your belief based on evidence, or faith?

    Perhaps it is because they sinned and are entirely undeserving of Heaven.

    In other words, if you weren’t lucky enough to be born at the right place and right time, you’re going to hell, sonny!

  6. Since we are throwing out links, let me toss a few of my own… :D

    http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/extraord.htm

    Sorry, I haven’t quite mastered the ability to make it into an actual link.

    This is in response to your “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”

    ~~~

    As for my supposed misunderstanding in regards to proof as it relates to science, your link does little to help you. All I got out of it was that there is no such thing as a “proof” for any theory will have to be modified as more new knowledge is acquired.

    To quote from the article itself, “In truth, science can never establish ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question.”

    Thus, how can you argue that the age of the earth is a “firmly established fact” if “facts” as we know them to not even apply in science?

    ~~~

    I don’t find this feasible at all.

    So you deny that something can be made to appear older than it actually is? It is impossible, in your mind, for someone to create a car that looks like it is twenty years old, but not even a day old?

    For example, could Ford start creating a 1954 Ford F100 today, and although it appears to have been made in the fifties, it is only one day old?

    ~~~

    In fact, I find it plain loony (see my “God is such a trickster!” comment above).

    Again, “foolishness” yadda, yadda. All that Bible stuff that you seem to be unable to understand.

    ~~~

    “Creation” can be explained without a creator

    How so? If I find a drawing, I can only logically conclude that there was a drawer. Drawings just don’t happen.

    ~~~

    Why would your god create this unimaginably immense universe, and populate it with this mere spec of a planet?

    This argument doesn’t disprove God’s existence, my friend. Just because I don’t understand why Stalin did what he did doesn’t mean he didn’t exist nor that he didn’t do what he did.

    ~~~

    Where are these prophets and apostles?

    Of course you know they are dead and passed away, but their testimony lives on in the Bible.

    Of course you can claim they are not really the works of the prophets and apostles, but you would be digging yourself into a hole because how can you determine that “The Republic” was written by Plato, “Hamlet” was written by Shakespeare, and “Origins of Species” was written by Darwin, unless you are using some other basis to determine the authorship of each book?

    ~~~

    Jesus may have existed, but the stories told of him in the gospels and other literature are almost certainly fiction.

    Again, a great claim, but where is the evidence?

    ~~~

    Is your belief based on evidence, or faith?

    Nay, rather my faith is based on evidence.

    ~~~

    In other words, if you weren’t lucky enough to be born at the right place and right time, you’re going to hell, sonny!

    1. What are you talking about?
    2. It doesn’t matter. If a person breaks the law, the judge isn’t obligated to give them a chance at anything. In the same way, we sinned. God isn’t obligated to save anyone, let alone everyone. We broke His Law, and we are guilty. It is pure mercy if He decides to save one person, and it is perfectly just of Him to not save another.

    [edited by Rick: fixed HTML usage]

  7. “But, you see, the problem with evolution is that one cannot test it. By definition, evolution is the random mutation of a certain species, and any attempt to test something that is random nullifies the possibility of randomness.”

    It is not so much randomness as probabilities. Science deals with probabilities all of the time.

    “How so? If I find a drawing, I can only logically conclude that there was a drawer. Drawings just don’t happen.”

    No, they don’t. And if you find a drawing, it stands out from the environment around it. It is clearly different from the “image” that some might see in the random mottling of any number of surfaces. You know there is an artist because the drawing simply does not fit into the natural world.

    But to point to the universe in which we live and say that it must be created is an entirely different thing to do and not at all analogous to the drawing.

    You have no larger context to view the universe from. How can you say it clearly does not fit within the larger scheme when the larger scheme is beyond our ken.

  8. And if you find a drawing, it stands out from the environment around it. It is clearly different from the “image” that some might see in the random mottling of any number of surfaces. You know there is an artist because the drawing simply does not fit into the natural world.

    But things aren’t random. Objects in nature are incredibly complex & purposed — far more so than any drawing ever sketched — and indeed, far more beautiful than any painting has ever been rendered.

    It’s interesting that artists have striven to accurately portray the environment within which we live, yet we’re willing to see intelligence & design within the artists’ work, but not in the genuine article. Is the mark of design imperfection?

  9. Dear Senior,

    You know there is an artist because the drawing simply does not fit into the natural world.

    Fair enough. So let’s use your argument against you.

    As Bob was kind enough to point out, planet earth, as far as we know, is the only planet that not only sustains life but is able to sustain life. Sure, you may argue that Venus or Mars might have contained life at one point or another, but it is simply a theory and nothing more. Based on the current evidence, earth is a singularity, just like a drawing.

    ~~~

    It is not so much randomness as probabilities.

    I suppose if you were to ask me, it would simply be a game of semantics.

    “Random” just means that something happens without reason or purpose. The antonym would be “orderly” which obviously means with reason or purpose.

    So, if creatures evolved through a series of random mutations, we would expect creatures to be very messed up. But we don’t. Creatures are very orderly. Which means that there is an inherent reason or purpose for that. But how can there be a purpose for any given thing without (S)omeone attributing that thing a purpose?

    Now, probability deals with the likeliness of one thing happening rather than another. If I throw a ball up into the air, there is a greater probability that it will fall down than get stuck in the air. Probability does not explain the reason something happens. Randomness and/or orderliness do.

    ~~~

    But to point to the universe in which we live and say that it must be created is an entirely different thing to do and not at all analogous to the drawing.

    Not really, actually. As Rick pointed out, things are not random. There is design/intent/order/purpose/patterns within the universe, and that can only logically be if there is a Designer/Intender/Orderer/Purposer/Patterner (okay, I made up a few words to make my point, but I think you get my point).

    Let us say I walk into an art museum and see a huge selection of classical art. Since one painting is like all the others, can I, borrowing your argument, assume that the one drawing has no Drawer, since it is like all the other drawings?

    ~~~

    I wonder how you explain away irreducible complexity, Senior. I’m sure you have heard the argument: an organism can only be reduced so far before it is impossible to reduce it any further without destroying it. If that is the case, then it is rather hard for marcroevolution to be true.

  10. This is in response to your “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”

    Thank you for the link, but it’s an amateurish essay at best, filled with strawman arguments as I’ll demonstrate in a bit.

    All I got out of it was that there is no such thing as a “proof” for any theory will have to be modified as more new knowledge is acquired.

    Great! Now you’ve learned something about science. No need to say that evolution can’t be proved.

    Thus, how can you argue that the age of the earth is a “firmly established fact” if “facts” as we know them to not even apply in science?

    Oh, but they do, just not in the way you’ve misunderstood them. As the article pointed out (are you sure you read it?), “As Stephen J. Gould has said, a scientific fact is not “absolute certainty”, but simply a theory that has been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent”.”

    So you deny that something can be made to appear older than it actually is?

    This wasn’t your claim at all.

    Your claim was that the Christian god created the universe approximately 10,000 years ago, but made it appear far, far older. Please provide an explanation, backed by evidence, why he would do this. Until such time, I call shenanigans.

    How so? If I find a drawing, I can only logically conclude that there was a drawer. Drawings just don’t happen.

    Calling earth a “creation” begs the question of a creator. Just because you don’t understand all the processes which undergird our reality, doesn’t give you license to ascribe them to your particular deity. Do you know how many creation stories there are?

    This argument doesn’t disprove God’s existence, my friend. Just because I don’t understand why Stalin did what he did doesn’t mean he didn’t exist nor that he didn’t do what he did.

    I don’t have to disprove your god’s existence, and that was not my intention. The fact that we’re but a microspec in this vast cosmos calls into question the Christian claim that we’re special somehow. This is why Christians were so opposed to work and theories of astronomers like Galileo.

    Again, a great claim, but where is the evidence?

    Please objectively quantify or qualify the evidence that would convince you.

    What? You can’t? Tell it to the author of the article you cited.

    There is a far better treatment of the ECREE principal.

    Nay, rather my faith is based on evidence.

    I gather evidence for you is whatever is written in the Bible, otherwise, we’d love to see your evidence that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, by the Christian god, who for some reason, decided to make it appear far older.

    1. What are you talking about?
    2. It doesn’t matter. If a person breaks the law, the judge isn’t obligated to give them a chance at anything. In the same way, we sinned. God isn’t obligated to save anyone, let alone everyone. We broke His Law, and we are guilty. It is pure mercy if He decides to save one person, and it is perfectly just of Him to not save another.

    I think it’s obvious what I’m talking about. There have been and will be large swaths of humanity who never heard of your god, his son, and their alleged written word.

    Since, according to Jesus, he is the only way to heaven (John 14:6), such persons will be undergoing torment for eternity, which you believe they deserve. Talk about being unlucky!

  11. “But things aren’t random.”

    I didn’t say “things” were. I only was referencing the phenomenon of people “seeing” images in the random mottling of surfaces. I brought it up as the closest one would come to finding the equivalent of a drawing in nature.

    “Is the mark of design imperfection?”

    Perfection?? Is creation perfect?? Biology on earth is messy and clumsy.

    “Objects in nature are incredibly complex & purposed”

    Complexity requires no designer. Purposed?? In whose eyes?? Be careful not to read into the world purpose that isn’t there.

    “Based on the current evidence, earth is a singularity, just like a drawing.”

    Based on current knowledge. But to accept this is really arrogant. Galaxies in the universe number in the millions. Stars in galaxies number in the millions. That there are (or have been/or will be) no other life sustaining planets in the universe stretches credulity far beyond where I’m willing to go.

    “So, if creatures evolved through a series of random mutations, we would expect creatures to be very messed up.”

    No, we wouldn’t. Someone who does not understand the theory of evolution might think that. But proper evolutionary theory does not at all predict “messed up” creatures. Nor does it predict “orderly” creatures. It predicts what we have. Creatures that succeed through (sometimes awkward) adaptations acquired through evolution via through genetic variation and mutation.

    “Probability does not explain the reason something happens. Randomness and/or orderliness do.”

    Depending on what you mean by “reason”, I would argue that none of the above explain it.

    Science explains how things happen. It can explain “why”, if by “why” one means what event caused a given event. But it cannot explain “Why?” It cannot explain purpose in the higher sense.

    “There is design/intent/order/purpose/patterns within the universe, and that can only logically be if there is a Designer/Intender/Orderer/Purposer/Patterner (okay, I made up a few words to make my point, but I think you get my point).”

    I don’t see the logic there at all. That there must be a designer is a judgment call at best. But it is not a logical necessity.

    “Let us say I walk into an art museum and see a huge selection of classical art. Since one painting is like all the others, can I, borrowing your argument, assume that the one drawing has no Drawer, since it is like all the other drawings?”

    You can, but you would be a fool. Now you are comparing the drawings to each other and not to the universe around you. How is this analogous to looking at the universe and trying to decide if it is unique among universes???

    “I wonder how you explain away irreducible complexity, Senior. I’m sure you have heard the argument: an organism can only be reduced so far before it is impossible to reduce it any further without destroying it.”

    I don’t have to refute it. It has been refuted very well by evolutionary scientists. (If I had the time, I would get out my books and get study enough so that I understood it enough that I could explain it to you. But I don’t have the time and my present understanding is not strong enough for me to teach the subject.) That you bring it up only demonstrates that you do not understand the theory of evolution. You understand what creationists have told you about the theory, but that isn’t the same thing. I have observed repeatedly that the “debunking” of evolution is preceded by a misstatement of evolution. It is the misstatement that is debunked.

    Back to Rick’s initial post. This discussion is a good example of his point. Science and religion are two different ways of looking at the world and they too often try to influence each other.

    Science cannot prove the Bible is false and Jesus was the Son of God. Religion cannot prove (and not just because religion does not deal with “proof”) that the universe is not billions of years old and man is not a product of evolution.

    Science is a study of the physical world around us. As it stands today, evolutionary theory is the paradigm under which science functions. There are literally mountains of data from many different fields that support this paradigm.

    From a scientific point of view, God is not a viable paradigm. That doesn’t mean that all scientists do not believe in God, just that scientifically God is not an acceptable explanation.

    If a scientist wants to discuss theology, then the discussion should be theological. If a theologian wants to discuss science, then the discussion should be scientific.

    Rick’s point is that too many scientists don’t properly grasp religion and choose to refute it despite that lack of understanding. His case is not without merit.

    Rick says he understands the science better than the scientist understands the theology. That may be, but I’m not convinced that Rick really understands, for example, evolutionary theory. I’m much more certain that you, Justin, do not understand evolutionary theory.

    That this discussion (creationism/evolution) continues as it does on a pretty wide scale in our society is in keeping with where we are today. Red state/blue state, pro-life/pro-choice, I’m right/you’re wrong.

    We really need to get past this and accept that there are other ways to view the world than our own. You are free to believe your view is the correct one (if you don’t, then what’s the point?), but you should be willing to accept that there are a lot of people living here on this planet and there is going to be a variety of viewpoints.

    Then maybe we can have discussions instead of arguments.

  12. Objects in nature are incredibly complex & purposed

    Complex, definitely. “Purposed”? Please cite your evidence.

    As Bob was kind enough to point out, planet earth, as far as we know, is the only planet that not only sustains life but is able to sustain life.

    I did not point such a thing out. Please retract. In fact, I believe in the great likelihood that we are NOT the only planet which sustains life.

  13. Because I am currently babysitting my brother, let me just say one thing…

    Bob,

    I did not point such a thing out. Please retract. In fact, I believe in the great likelihood that we are NOT the only planet which sustains life.

    And I quote:

    “Why would your god create this unimaginably immense universe, and populate it with this mere spec of a planet?”

  14. I did not point such a thing out. Please retract. In fact, I believe in the great likelihood that we are NOT the only planet which sustains life.

    And I quote:

    “Why would your god create this unimaginably immense universe, and populate it with this mere spec of a planet?”

    This was a question for YOU, expressed within the framework of your belief. I’ve made it obvious I don’t believe in your god, so why would I also believe that this is the only life-bearing planet in the universe?

  15. Bob, I’m sorry that I misunderstood you.

    When you wrote that, I didn’t carry your unbelief through the entire statement.

    To understand my thought process, look at this typical atheistic argument, “Why would a good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist?” Just because the atheist denies God’s existence doesn’t mean he is also denying evil exists.

    In the same way, I thought that just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t believe Earth is the only planet.

    ~~~

    I’ve made it obvious I don’t believe in your god

    Question: You keep making a reference to “your” God, which leads me to assume that you are at least suggesting that there is a God, but not necessarily of the Judeo-Christian type? Please correct me if I am wrong.

  16. “I implore such atheists to stop misusing science in their perpetual quest to debunk the idea of God.”

    Science is not needed to debunk the idea of God. Let’s call God what it really is, a childish delusion, a belief in an invisible friend, or an invisible magician, who has no value and has no evidence. What is needed to debunk gods is the simple common sense required to figure out all gods are just goofy inventions of ancient and ignorant people. The idea there’s an invisible man who lives in the clouds is just plain stupid, and no sane person should take it seriously.

  17. Thanks, BobC, for that heapin’ helpin’ of ad hominem. Had you read & understood the above, science (and by extension, atheism) can do no harm to the concept of God.

    I presume you know that, which is why you resort to simply insulting the idea.

    You have my pity, Sir.

Leave a Reply to Justin Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

the Rick Beckman archive
Scroll to Top