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
scientists, or human observers were around to see how it took place.
Don't
be deceived, this isn't about
"religion" but about truth: the truth of how we all came to
be.
Either impersonal and often destructive, "forces of nature"
organized
proteins (or pre-proteins), DNA structures,
and somehow (?)
programmed it
and made "it" come alive, and
made it see,
hear, taste, touch, and be Male of Female -- and to reproduce
(after its own kind)
and gave "it" a mind and a personality (with
feelings), and made "it" become a personal being ... ... .Or a personal
Being
of Great Significance put life -- and us -- together?
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.
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 nobody made them ... and that they (just sort of) evolved ... and that their beliefs are based on sound, irrefutable " science."
The atheist /
evolutionist community have made themselves into what are, in effect, (ALL
knowing) "science priests," who pretend to know how we got here, and
that (they just KNOW that) God didn't make 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? Is it not because you are afraid of the truth
and don't want it to be told: much less to prevail, or because you are intolerant?
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?
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.
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 are afraid that you are 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?
Copyright
2013,
www.earthage.org
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 a Creator
Red
Letter to Atheist
Is
Evolution Scientific?
If atheism were Science?
Which is More
Scientific?
Questions
for Evolutionists
Geneticist
Defends his Beliefs