Open Letter to an Atheist
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder against God and people who think that
Somebody -- other than "nature" -- made them. Why is that?
Are you against the idea of Creation, or only as it applies to how you (also)
came to be?
we and the
world exist, then
Whoever (or whatever) made us is our Creator: either the impersonal, normally
destructive, forces of nature, or Someone who
manipulated and organized matter to make 'it' come to life -- before any humans
were around to observe what (or how it) took place.
be deceived, this is NOT about
"religion" but about truth: the truth of how we all came to
Either the impersonal, normally destructive,
"forces of nature" organized matter, programmed it's DNA and gave "it"
the ability to see,
hear, taste, feel, reproduce (after its own kind), and gave it a mind and an
invisible spirit, and made us to come alive and become a personal
being ... OR
Being of Great Significance did it, and gave us our life?
is supposed to be a search for the truth, no matter where it leads: even if it points
toward an Intelligent Being whom most
refer to as God.
God made the earth, and made it habitable for life, and designed
all life forms and programmed their DNA, then that makes Him
both the Creator and our (personal) Creator.
stores Information ...
for those who don't know, information is not the same as atoms, or
random data, as the following illustrations make clear: one of which depicts
plain old atoms, and the other, those that are arranged to form letters of the
English alphabet, like the words on this page.
However, since many
who call themselves "scientists" have been, and still are, trying to exclude any and
all creative intelligence from the discussion of how we all came to be, this means
that science has been "high jacked" and turned into a
religion of what arrogant and pompous elitists assert that they (just) 'know' to be
that we all (just sort of) evolved ... and that their beliefs are based on sound, irrefutable " science."
The atheist /
No-God-Allowed / evolutionists have declared themselves to be ALL knowing
"science priests," who pretend to know how we
got here, and
who (just) KNOW that nobody (of significance) made them. However, the fact is
that they have not observed, nor can they demonstrate how even the simplest bacteria came into being,
which means that
they have very little, if any, "science" to back up their beliefs.
God is removed from the origin of life debate, then why not also remove His
influence from all public
life? Isn't this your ultimate goal? Isn't
this debate really about the fact that you don't want to even consider having to give an
account to a Creator / God (who made you), nor for that Creator to try and place restraints
on how you live, or try and tell you about right and wrong?
is the debate said to be about ''science'' vs. ''religion'' when neither
the atheists who say this, nor their "science" can demonstrate how the most simple one-celled bacteria -- nor
even a single life-based
protein – can come about by natural forces: apart from
In this regard an article on this subject
states bluntly that:
are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already
living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what
(has been) taught." 1
who question the above may be interested to know that scientists have yet to
even make all 20 different amino acids (that cells us to build proteins) without using already existing bacteria
or other biological organs, and/or organisms. To verify this simply
search online for, "Can scientists make all 20 amino acids" (from
scratch) or "how scientists make proteins." Inevitably one
will find that they use bacteria or other pre-existing biological organisms.
God is the Creator, then it makes sense that He used His intelligence to Design
the way that our heart pumps blood and works in conjunction with our lungs
(and our environment) to carry oxygen throughout our body, and that our eyes
were Designed to see and our ears to hear and our minds to think.
And since DNA also has not been observed to make itself from chemicals, much
less program itself, then why should we believe that it did so in the past?
Is it not true that
we are more complicated and aware than frogs,
worms, or amoebas, and that life itself is more complicated than rocks,
minerals, or chemicals? In fact, life is more complex than anything
mankind has yet made: including cars,
airplanes, computers, and even a walking
that was Designed and Programmed
by highly trained engineers and programmers who used their intelligence to do so.
With carbon and the
right machinery, scientists can make a diamond, yet they can’t make an amoeba, nor
new type of self-replicating organism: at least not yet. Isn't this because living things are
more complex, if not much more so, than rocks
Designed .... but evolved (???)
was the claim of those who want to explain the "appearance of
Design" without need of a Designer: regarding (biological / DNA
programmed) plant-hopper) gears.
The article's author concluded it with the following:
a minute. How do we know these gears evolved, as opposed to having been
designed? Because we know that everything in biology evolved. And how do we
know that everything evolved? Because we know that nothing was designed.
Right. But how do we know that nothing was designed? Because we know
got it now. Everyone clear?"1
only one (biased) viewpoint about our origin is welcome in our public schools
and the halls of science, then how can that be called "freedom" of
thought: or to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
education and "science" supposed to be a search for the truth: no matter where it
If so then it's wrong to exclude intelligence and Creation from the debate: whether in an open
forum on a college campus, public square, or the classrooms and halls of our educational system:
and especially that which is funded by the people with (their) tax dollars.
Mutations perform the Trick?
to some proponents of evolution, favorable mutations repeatedly caused (or
created time and again) a series of beneficial alterations in multitudes of
different organisms over millions and millions of years, and are thus said to
account for all life forms on Earth today. In a book on origins, science
and creation, the authors make the following comments in this regard:
theoretical production of a higher or more complex form (of life) by the
accumulation of beneficial mutations is such a slow process that it is
admitted ... to be unobservable. This ... accounts in large measure for
the desire by evolutionists to increase the span of geological time, in spite
of much evidence that the earth is actually quite young. In any case,
... it is ... unscientific for a theory of science to ... rely on
non-demonstrable hypothetical processes for its basic mechanism."
models have been set up to test the possibility of advancement of an
information code ... by selection from random variations ... (however,) The
results indicate that loss rather than gain inevitably results." 2
Stephen Meyer goes into much more detail on the above subject of mutations
creating complexity in a book called
Signature in the
Ancestry or Common Creator?
assert that since many different types of life have similar things in common
that this is clear evidence that they "inherited them from previous
ancestors," but in this regard you fail to mention the just as likely --
if not much more likely -- scenario of a common Designer / Creator using
similar tools to accomplish similar tasks. For example, wheels come in
all different sizes and types, as do ball bearings, screw-drivers, and beams,
yet they are used in all sorts of different things -- that were each made by
people. So the common ancestry assertion doesn't "hold water,"
much less prove that we evolved.
it be that your hatred toward God or the thought of Judgment has played a part in
the hostility and anger that you often display toward those who believe
in God? Or is it simply that you fear that you may be
wrong about what you say you know to be a "fact"?
is it because you want to be feared and obeyed as if you were God:
even though you didn't make yourself, nor can you make an ant, or an amoeba,
nor a synthetic blade of grass?
not a "fact" that your jobs are on the line, and that your superiors require
you to “toe the line,” regarding their evolutionist, "no-God-allowed" beliefs?
you aware that many founders of modern science were Creationists who believed
in God: and that He made the earth, and life: including them?
Robert Boyle is called the founder of Chemistry, Isaac Newton
invented calculus, Mendel is the father of genetics, and Pasteur discovered
germs and disproved the belief that life came from non-life?
Did you know that all of these men were Christians who believed the bible
and that God and Jesus made the universe, and us?
Or is your bias
against God linked to the
fact that you don’t want anyone telling you how to live, nor about right and
wrong, nor of a God who says He and His Son are coming back to assert authority over
a world that They made: even as we are told very clearly in both Old and New Testaments?
1. Mechanical Gears Discovered on Planthopper
Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize, or Deny, Design, by Casey
and Creation, Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, 1971, p. 39
Permission granted to copy, mass-produce, reproduce,
post on your website or blog, and/or modify and distribute as you like
If atheism were Science?
Which is More
People Believe in Evolution
Geneticist Defends his Beliefs