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?

Since 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.  

Don't be deceived, this is NOT about "religion" but about truth: the truth of how we all came to be.  

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  a personal Being of Great Significance did it, and gave us our life?

Science 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.  

And if 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.  

DNA stores Information ...  And 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 true: i.e. 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.  

If 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?

Why 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 pre-existing life?   In this regard an article on this subject states bluntly that:

"Proteins 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

Those 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.

If 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 talking robot 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 design and program a 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 and minerals?   

Not Designed .... but evolved (???)

That was the claim of those who want to explain the "appearance of Design" without need of a Designer: regarding (biological / DNA programmed) plant-hopper) gearsThe article's author concluded it with the following:

"Wait 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 everything evolved.

Ah, got it now. Everyone clear?"1

If 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?  

Isn’t education and "science" supposed to be a search for the truth: no matter where it leads?  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.


Did Mutations perform the Trick?

According 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:

"The 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."

"Computer 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

Dr. Stephen Meyer goes into much more detail on the above subject of mutations creating complexity in a book called Signature in the Cell

Common Ancestry or Common Creator?

You 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.

Could 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"?  

Or 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?

Is it 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?

Are you aware that many founders of modern science were Creationists who believed in God: and that He made the earth, and life: including them? 

For example, 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 Luskin, 
2. Science and Creation, Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, 1971, p. 39

Copyright 2013,
Permission granted to copy,  mass-produce, reproduce,  post on your website or blog,  and/or modify and distribute as you like

 See also: 
 Proof of Creator 
Letter to an Atheist
Is Evolution Scientific?
If atheism were Science?
Which is More Scientific?
Questions for Evolutionists 
Why People Believe in Evolution 
Plant Geneticist Defends his Beliefs 

Articles on the Age of the Earth:
The Missing Roots 
The Missing Matter 
Essays  on  Evolution 
Science  Vs  Evolution
The  Age  of  the  Earth 
Young  Earth  Evidences 
The  Age of  the  Universe 
The Continental Drift Story 
Evidence for a Young  World 
More Geologic Evidences Page 
Evidence For A Recent Creation 
The Scriptures and A Young Earth 
Is the Earth really 4.5 Billion Years Old?
Do Evaporites and Varves favor an Old Earth?  
What You Probably Didn't Know About Ice Cores
If Corals are so Old, then why do they Date so Young? 
Young age of the Earth & Universe Questions & Answers


Books on the age of the Earth
The Young Earth  
The Age of the Earth 
Faith, Form, and Time
Thousands  Not  Billions 
The  Great Turning  Point 

Its A  Young  World After All 
Illustrated Origins Answer Book 
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth  


Links to Creationist Web Sites
Creationist Author Links
Creation Web Sites Links
VHS & DVD Video Links
The Age of the Earth Links
Modern Science's Foundation
True Origin Archive on Creation


Fantasy Land 
Old Earth Evidence 
The Age of the Earth Debate 


See Also:
Did Humans come from Coral?
Was the Earth Created Instantly?  
Six Days or Six Long Time Periods 
Are Dinosaurs Millions of Years Old? 


Radiometric Dating    Continental Drift    The Big Bang    

Worldwide Flood    Young Earth Evidence