In Articles, Teachings

HouseQuote

I have issued three public challenges (not to mention several private ones) to the more than 215,000 followers on my Facebook page for atheists to provide specific qualified evidence for Darwinian evolution. Each time, my challenge has been met with deafening silence. Yet, when I say something about faith in God or the wonder of His creation, I am met with hostility, insults and mockery from outspoken atheists who say I am unscientific and stupid. Maybe I am ignorant…enlighten me then – answer my question!

I have been in the Church all my life, but I have never seen the dogmatism and blind faith demonstrated by these atheists. They regurgitate old, tired, refuted arguments like a chorus of mocking jays with such overconfidence they seem like a parody of themselves.

If you didn’t see my challenge, here it is again. I am asking for one example (just one) that meets these five criteria:

  1. It must be a random mutation that has occurred naturally
  2. It must have been observed (aka science)
  3. It must have added NEW information to the genome
  4. The mutation must also benefit the host
  5. Don’t resort to citing silly examples of E. Coli or other microorganisms.

Darwin’s model requires this to happen trillions of times. I’m asking for just one example. Truth be told, I could drop several of these criteria and lower the threshold significantly and the challenge would remain unmet. The theory is incredibly vulnerable, yet the atheist will often say to me with religious conviction, “Evolution is a proven fact.” This is such an intentionally misleading statement and here’s why:

Every Christian, no matter how conservative, believes that organisms do adapt and speciate (this is part of God’s brilliant design). If NASA built a rover that could go to an alien planet and adapt to any environmental condition it encountered this would be an example of a more elegant design not less. How then does an atheist look at the amazing ability of life to adapt and, rather than praising it’s brilliant designer, conclude there is none?

So again, Christians DO believe in the kind of “evolution” that exists in the real world; namely, adaptation and speciation. But the Darwinian claim that organisms can evolve into different “kinds” (as opposed to species) by gaining complexity through the addition of new genetic information has NEVER been observed…not even once! (let me clarify, that when I say “Kinds” I’m making a reference to Biblical terminology. The Bible speaks of “kinds” which are a grouping similar to what we would describe today as a genus (plural genera). So there is room for a lot of variation within a “kind”, many species in fact).

Every mutation we know of is the result of an exchange, duplication or loss of information. For example, I have literally had atheists point to Down syndrome as an example of evolution! Who would argue that Down syndrome is a beneficial mutation? But even if it were, it is simply caused by a duplication of genetic information (a third copy of chromosome 21). There is no new genetic information being added whatsoever!

This means that the kind of mutations we have observed cannot change organisms into different or more complex kinds. They will adapt, but they will never be anything other than what they are:

  • A dog’s genes may be manipulated to produce many different breeds but they will always be dogs.
  • Fruit flies may grow a second pair of wings, but they will always be fruit flies.
  • Finches may grow longer beaks, but they will always be finches.
  • Bacteria may find new food to metabolize will always be bacteria.

These adaptations are evidence for a fact that no one disputes, namely that organisms can often adapt to their environment in certain ways. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that bacteria are becoming dogs and flies are becoming finches. This means that Darwin’s cult is a matter of faith not science. Believe what you want to, but don’t be a hypocrite and hold the Christian to a different standard.

My bottom line – I don’t believe in atheists. They are at war, not with God, but with themselves. They are as conflicted as a child denying its mother. This is why their resistance seems painful and passionate – not what you would expect from someone denying a fairytale. They are rejecting the inner witness of their own souls, the testimony of nature and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It must be an extremely itchy existence “kicking against the goads.” My heart is broken for the atheist. I’m praying for you today (sincerely). I don’t pray that you would come to any religion (I hate religion as much as anyone). But I pray that you would come to know the love of God through Jesus Christ.

Recent Posts
Showing 142 comments
  • Darren Nelson
    Reply

    While it is admirable that you assigned specific criteria to proof of the theory of evolution, you have a few flaws I would like to point out. Primarily, you don’t allow a basic premise of the theory, the fact that such mutations and changes to the gene coding take millions of years for even simple and lasting changes. Secondly, mutation (in the sense of lasting change on D.N.A.) does not occur unless it benefits the reproductive and survival efforts of the species. Thirdly, it has been observed that our genetic code is repeated (though not in order or completely) in the D.N.A. of other species, including but not limited to: pigs, chimpanzees, rats, octopi, dogs, etc.

    Evolution does not refute your God, it simply explains the best possibility for life to have reached the point we are at now. Also, two things you might look into: kinds is a nonsense term with regards to the theory (coined by the charlatan Ray Comfort), and dogs are descended from wolves.

    I recommend a thorough read of “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. You might find it illuminating.

  • Tyler
    Reply

    You could’ve just done a quick wikipedia search and found all of the info you wanted.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_comparative_physiology_and_biochemistry
    Of course, if wikipedia isn’t “scholarly” enough for an accomplished biologist like yourself, you could always scroll down to the bottom and check out any of the 167 sources for the information and evaluate their credibility.

    Of course, you could also check out this lovely report about a dolphin with hind flippers. http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/dolphin_hind_limbs.html Pretty sure it meets all of your criteria… unless you feel like quibbling about #4 (which of course, shouldn’t even be a criterion because mutations don’t care whether they’re beneficial or not… they’re not sentient. They don’t care. It’s natural selection that “decides” whether it’s beneficial or not.)

    By the way, have you ever read the first two pages of the Bible? You know, Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. I would kindly ask you to go back and read them again, and then answer one simple question:
    Were plants and animals created before the first human, or after?

    If you want to try to supplant over 150 years of scientific research, with your “creationism”, maybe you should make sure that you get your own story straight first.

  • den barton
    Reply

    Its unbelievable how many unbelievable things an unbeliever believes.

  • Rob Mitchem
    Reply

    That was an interesting article with some good points, but you left out the most obvious one. Darwin’s “theory of relativity” tells on itself by the first word in its title. It’s only a theory not proven fact. – ROB Fearless Skateboarding Ministry

    • Insti Gator

      1. The Theory of Relativity was written by Einstein

      2. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species

      3. Gravity is also a scientific theory. Do you believe in gravity?

      4. “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.” <–simple google search

      Your comment was so excruciatingly wrong….

    • Kayla

      To Rob:

      Saying “It’s only a theory” doesn’t actually hold any real ground for argument. A theory is a highly tested hypothesis that has enough evidence to support it in any number of variable circumstances. It has as much authority as a law. The only real difference between a law and a theory is that a law can be specifically proven over and over again, while a theory contains information that can not be directly observed (we cannot watch evolution take place over millions of years with our own eyes). If it were “only a hypothesis” then your argument would be valid.

    • Tyler

      The theory of relativity was Einstein, and it has nothing to do with evolution.

      Also, would you recommend walking off the edge of a skyscraper? After all, gravity is “only a theory”, and as you’ve so eloquently put it, theories are “not proven fact”.

      Next time, go read a book before you open your mouth and make yourself look foolish.

  • Kayla
    Reply

    First, I would like to clarify that I am not an atheist. I do, however, believe in evolution considering the vast amount of evidence that we have accumulated over the past few generations. I would like to point out that, contrary to most Christian beliefs, that mutations are NOT the only factor contributing to evolution. There are a number of events that can occur, including interbreeding of similar species, that result in new genetic information being added to the DNA chain of the offspring. You are correct in saying that mutations will never result in the creation of new genomes. Rather, mutations will either delete information, rearrange information, or insert (accidently copy too many of the same piece of information) into the strand of DNA being copied. Most mutations are harmful, though some would be considered neutral resulting in neither harm nor benefit to the host in question. Some, however rare, are beneficial. For example, are you able to drink milk or digest cheese without getting sick? That is a genetic mutation. Only a few people have remained lactose intolerant because this mutation has benefited us. Natural selection will sometimes directly choose a harmful mutation, however, if the mutation favors reproudction. For example, Sickle cell disease (SCD) is deadly in most cases, but provides immunity to malaria. Since malaria results in a higher death rate than SCD, people infected have a higher chance of living to the age of maturity, allowing them to breed and pass the immunity to their offspring. The word “random” should be used with caution, as the events are only random in the individuals that participate. Because I am a Christian, I would argue that evolution is a Godly guided process. As a Christian, it is also disheartening to see so many fellow Christian spew false information in regards to science and evolution. The bible is not a scientific text, and should not have any quarrel with scientific information. If the bible is truth, it will always be truth regardless of what information is discovered. Science only tells us how things happen, and do not attest to WHY these things happen. If you read Genesis the way that the ancient Jews (the people the bible was wrote for) then you would not read it literally. We have no reason to fear science, and there is no real point to argue against it. They have no correlation, and I fear that a number of our youth will be prevented from coming to Christ if we continue to tell them that science and evolution is “an atheist lie”. Please consider the number of college students, and even high school students, that you may be turning away from the faith because of information that does not even pertain to the bible. I hope this was helpful. I am a biology major, and I intend to pursue a second degree in theology so that I can help answer some of these difficult questions in the future.

  • Ty Drain
    Reply

    A friend of mine shared and I ended up writing a response to it, I don’t mean to be rude, but I thought I’d share what I wrote here as well?

    [Disclaimer: I am not an Atheist, I just read a lot]

    Ok let’s get started,

    The whole crux of this article is that Atheists have a blind faith in evolution and that this makes Atheists invalid, for one thing, it assumes that being an Atheist and believing in evolution are mutually inclusive, when infact some Atheists do not even believe in evolution.

    Another problem I have with that article is it suggests the arguement that Atheists are at war with themselves, as if the only reason someone would be an Atheist is because of personal reasons and not simply because they have a lack in belief in any type of deity. This mindset is actually really common though for some reason, The movie God’s Not Dead’s whole deal with the proffessor was that he was just bitter at God for hardships in his childhood.

    I mean I am not saying that there are not Atheists who are at war with themselves, I am just saying considering that’s the only type of atheists was sort of narrow a narrow mindset.. Then again it might be you’re (the author’s) honest belief that those sorts of people really are the only type of Atheist there is, which if that’s youre belief then that’s fine but I personally do not agree with that?

    In my life I’ve known a few Atheists who genuinly just don’t believe and it seems to end there.. Maybe they are just masking their deep inner hatred for everything Jehovah? Who know’s but them!

    All in all I enjoyed reading it but as a person who’s heard this sort of thing a lot, I had a lot of thoughts on the matter. Thank you for giving my comment a read and God Bless!

  • Daniel
    Reply

    What you’re essentially saying is that you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. Microevolution observes changes within species. Macroevolution describes how species themselves change and, yes, turn into new ones.

    Macroevolution relies on historical science. There are countless examples in the fossil record showing how various animals evolved into others. We have ample evidence of the transition from our ancestors to modern humans. We have fossil records of the evolution of fish to land animals.

    I’m assuming you dismiss this evidence because it doesn’t count as the “real world” because fossils are from the past, even though they very much count as scientific evidence. Claims about fossils are constantly tested for their veracity. No one has yet to produce evidence disproving the fossil record, which very clearly shows the development of different species.

    You also write that species evolving by “gaining complexity through the addition of new genetic information has NEVER been observed”, which is patently untrue.

    DNA of offspring is always slightly different from its parents’. Bases get substituted, removed, or inserted through mistakes during the copying of genetic material. Sometimes the mutation creates an effect like autism; sometimes it improves on its previous version, like making a thumb slightly more opposable. Beneficial changes like these help species survive, and the sum of these changes can radically change species, and yes, it can create new ones.

    Berkeley has a wonderful resource on evolution, if you’re interested. It answers a lot of your questions.

  • Madyson Preston
    Reply

    You seem very set in your ways, so I’m absolutely sure anything anyone has to say is ignored, but I’ll talk with you anyways. You are correct about Evolution being stated incorrectly as a definite fact; however, it is as much of a theory as your religion. I do not know much about microbiology or evolutionary biology in an in-depth way neither does your average Atheist, and so most of us do not feel comfortable in discussing what we find to be out of our knowledge base. However, I do keep up with scientific journals. I question them. I ask. Most of us do not follow blindly and when we see people starting to do so, we encourage them to question where there beliefs stand. Whereas, you can’t explain how there came to be a God, I can give you theories for how the universe began without one. No, nothing we know right now is set in stone, but we are learning and advancing. You are, again, set in your ways. Please, I do not mean to be offensive, but if you are allowed to defend your beliefs, let me defend mine. I send no ill-will towards you. I harbor no feelings of hatred. I just would like you to look, only look, at another view without bias in your head. Thank you.

  • John
    Reply

    I don’t believe you understand evolution. I’m not saying that you are wrong for believing there is a God or for having faith in something you can’t see. Everyone can believe what they want to believe. As someone who believes that people need science in order to live a beneficial and rewarding life, I believe that you should educate yourself on what evolution is and what different types of evolution exist. I could explain it all here, but I’m sure you don’t want to spend your time reading a choppy version of what Richard Dawkins better explains. He is an atheist, and most people by that alone are deterred from reading his books. I do encourage you to read The Greatest Show on Earth, and though he does at points make a mockery of religion and belief, he does an excellent job of breaking down what Darwin meant in his writing, pointing out some of the flaws in Darwin’s thinking, and explaining how evolutionary thought has itself evolved over the years. If you have any interest in learning science for your own benefit, whether it be to learn how to properly tend a garden or just for the sheer enjoyment of learning the nature of how things work, I’m sure you’ll find this book to be an improvement on your knowledge of evolution and its many tedious processes. Thanks for reading!

  • Vaughn
    Reply

    Great article.

  • Andrew
    Reply

    “I hate religion as much as anyone.” No, that would make you an atheist, deist, secularist, etc. You are very clearly a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ. I don’t understand why Christians always attempt to shed the “religion” label. If you’re religious, then admit that you are religious.

    For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that evolution HAS to be beneficial. Evolution is a series of random mutations that may help or hurt the host. That’s where natural selection comes in. Beneficial traits are “selected” because it aids in the survival of the species, allowing it to thrive. However, it can be a two-edged sword. Our eyes were originally adapted to see well in water, but when our amphibious ancestors evolved to see on land, they could not simply undo the evolution that happened originally to their eyes. The result are eyes that are well-suited for land, but will be never as good on land as they were originally in water. Why would the creator you claim exists give us eyes originally meant to see underwater?

    Downs Syndrome is a perfect example of evolution because it is a random mutation. We’ve already been over that evolution does not have to be beneficial and due to our modern society, people with Downs Syndrome, although less suited for survival, are able to survive. Second, you apparently have no idea how DNA works. It’s a genetic code, meaning the body interprets it and translates it into observable, physical characteristics. An alteration in the code results in different traits being interpreted. You don’t need to “add” anything, a human being is not a potion.

    Your bottom line also doesn’t really make any sense. Atheists aren’t “at war” with anything because every atheist is different. There is no dogma telling us who or what to believe. You’re right that we’re not at war with God, because that wouldn’t make much sense to declare war on something we don’t believe exists.
    The reason many atheists are so aggressive is perhaps because of how absurd religious beliefs are, the sheer number of people who believe such ridiculous things, and the very, very negative consequences of religion in our world. It’s a very frustrating experience to be an atheist surrounded by religious people. Now that more and more atheists are becoming open about their beliefs (something that used to be social suicide due to religious attitudes) it’s very encouraging to atheists to see such progress

  • Jim
    Reply

    You will find very few people who will entertain a challenge to prove something that they know to be false. Since Darwinian evolution does not meet those criteria, requiring examples of Darwinian evolution that meets those criteria is illogical.

    The problem with such an assault on people with whom you disagree is that you must first understand their position before you ask them to defend some other position in your ignorance.

  • Cyndi C
    Reply

    Love this… Scientific & Spirit filled response!

  • Terry
    Reply

    What I find interesting is the pluralistic view that if it is not that then it must be this. The beauty of science is that by continuing to seek it admits it does not know. Personally, I find the evidence for both patchy at best. Written reports from people who were not there at any of the events. ( whole new argument re bible timeline authenticity ) seem to me to divide people into those who find their truth and those who are still looking. My truth does not have to be yours and vice versa. I believe they are both valid. What I do reject is the view that the inner witness of your soul has to be the same as mine, that is to concede that you are more, valid, more important or more worthy than any who do not agree with you.

  • Lynn M.
    Reply

    Thanks for bravely sharing the facts. Yes,I do believe in adaptation. But telling me that whales were once land animals going against the words that all species were made of after their own kind. It is impossible for one thing to “become” something totally different than it’s seed. Yes, animals adapt (just as people do to weather and situations) but there is not one piece of evidence that proves evolution.

    I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.

    I am praying with you that more and more atheists get tired of believing in something that has no prove…and begins to look to science that proves that God really does exist! Science doesn’t disprove God….it PROVES HIM! And it’s time atheists (who really aren’t because they talk more about God that than believers do!) If God does not exist…why talk about Him?? Well, as you said, they do because they are fighting the existence of God within themselves.

  • janiuires
    Reply

    Wow, very very nice…God bless you… man of God!

  • Ian
    Reply

    Okay, you have obviously had a lot of unpleasent experiences with atheists. I am truly sorry you had to experience that (I am not speaking for anyone but myself here). There are some things in this article that I would like to respectfully clear up to the best of my knowledge.
    First, believing evolution and being an atheist, while often correlated, are independent of each other. I think it is important to clear this up. You can believe evolution and also believe in a higher power.
    Next, where did you get these criteria? You are using some random criteria that aren’t required for evolution.

    “It must be a random mutation that has occurred naturally” – okay that is a part of evolution, but if we look at a single mutation that leads to better adaptation then it can’t really be called evolution, it’s just an adaptation. Evolution is gradual. It occurs over immense periods of time with multiple mutations and very minute changes. A single mutation is one very small part of the bigger picture.
    “It must have been observed (aka science)” -Alright, observation is part of the scientific method, the first step actually. An observed phenomenon leads to final conclusion. Evolution isn’t just observed. Things like speciation and microevolution are observed, and evolution explains why this phenomena occurs.
    “It must have added NEW information to the genome” I’m assuming you mean a mutation? Evolution doesn’t add things to genomes. If a mutation occurs, and is then passed on to offspring, and the offspring are better fit for the environment than organisms without the mutations, then this can be called evolution. I feel like sometimes evolution is seen as sentient (not literally, I know this sounds weird but it’s hard to explain) and it is not. It is just a name we give to an observed phenomenon. Evolution doesn’t happen because of additions to the genome, just mutations.
    “The mutation must also benefit the host” That is why mutations are passed down so I suppose this one is okay.
    “Don’t resort to citing silly examples of E. Coli or other microorganisms.” – Why do you call these examples silly? Macroevolution Occurs over millions of years. Of course one scientist can’t observe this over his/her lifetime. However, bacteria evolve much faster than humans. This has been observed in a lab, I’m sure you know all about it. We can see evolution happening. If we keep the experiment going for several million years, then enough changes may take place to be able to call the bacteria a different kind of organism. This goes for your dogs, fruit flies, and finches as well. Given enough time, they may very well change.

    I think with a lot of evolution deniers, they just don’t have a proper education on the subject. I could be wrong but I really feel that if everyone was properly educated on the subject it would be more accepted.

    Bacteria don’t turn into dogs, and flies don’t turn into finches. That just doesn’t happen. I think we can agree on that. When people try to use this argument, they don’t take into account common ancestors. One species cannot give birth to another. Their ancestors, however, just took different evolutionary routes.

    Lastly, I just want to point out that you are generalizing an entire group of people (atheists). Not everyone is the same, and I can guarantee you that most atheists are not at war with themselves.

    (This was typed on a mobile phone, I apologize if there are spelling/grammar errors)

  • Michael Hays
    Reply

    Well written and thoughtful. I believe atheists are among the most “religious” people of all. And like all very religious people, to question their dogma is to question their very foundation of “truth”.

  • Jenifer
    Reply

    Firstly I am not an atheist, but I am a dentist who majored in Biology and minored in Chemistry. My first two years of dental school were in tandem at the medical school. So with that being said, many people have a basic misunderstanding of Darwin, he wrote origin of species he did not write how life Came into existence and thus belief in God is not at war with evolution. There is no such war.

    1) you ask for an example of a random mutation, well according to Darwin and a clear understanding of Natural selection ( meaning that those best adapted to an environment will thrive and breed and pass on those traits) the mutation is not actually random.
    2) There is an experiement in russia where foxes were bred to each other based on personality lack of fear friendliness etc. Over generations these foxes became dogs. Their features changed etc. They were no longer foxes but actually dogs.

    2) No new genetic information is “introduced” Darwin did not write that man developed from a single cell organism into man, merely that man evolved to be what he is. Can this not also be parallel with creation.
    At first man did not know the difference between Good and evil, hmm like cave man. But then adam and eve ate from the tree. Well there it is evolution!!! Then they were not as God created them , they were different

  • Joshua
    Reply

    Incredible post! The last paragraph is brilliance and highlights what is really behind a lot of atheist vitriol.

    Keep ig up, Daniel!

  • D Jordan
    Reply

    I wish to just correct or ask for clarification – the way you seem to describe some points are referring to lemarkism, not Darwinian theory of evolution. Mutations don’t occur to “adapt” to a situation.
    Merely, a large number of Mutations occur randomly and are in existence in the gene pool. Let’s say certain features that may make a trait more attractive, or less likely to be prone to a disease, or for example, resistant to medication if we want to talk about bacteria, and over time, the creatures that have such traits are more likely to be successful, more likely to survive while other traits disappear over time, or become less common. For example, people with resistance to certain plagues or diseases and survive things such as the black plague – this resistance is passed on for generations.
    Or, nature will collectively put traits together and it creates certain traits that over time become more specialised (for example, imagine if Asian women only date Asian men. Not necessarily a politically correct suggestion, but I’m trying to prove a point).
    This is like taking a group of dogs as a category, and then over time selectively breeding to create certain species, like Labrador, chihuahua, etc. Over time, they will be unable to cross breed anymore, hence becoming different species. Dogs is a smaller scale example, as this mainly happened due to human intervention – imagining this happening over all animals is more difficult for humans to comprehend in one go, but the timeline is BILLIONS of years, human history is only approx 5000-7000 depending who you believe. But as saying they will always be dogs? No, there are exceptions. There are wolves, there are dingoes. Technically still canines. The categories are for humans to comprehend. Then on the other hand, how far back do you want to include? We could say primates are always primates, or all animals are all animals. Where do we draw the line exactly?
    Some may just be bred out through just being recessive, such as colour blindness – over time, the instance of colour blindness becomes less and less due to it being a recessive trait, and if we extrapolate, colour blindness may be non existent in humans in a thousand years time.
    for your fruit fly example, the wings don’t just come from nowhere due to an adaptation. It is through recessive genes. It’s not an adaptation – rather, imagine fruit flies with less wings are unable to fly as fast and hence more prone to predators and more likely to die.

    As it seems you don’t quite understand, finches don’t become bacteria, which don’t become apes. Apes don’t become humans either – it is derived from a common ancestor. Put it this way – an Asian and a native American don’t suddenly switch cultures. But by your belief, they come from a common ancestor, you know as Adam and Eve. To suggest a dog becoming a cat is absurd by any measure, and that’s not anywhere near evolution. I still point out this is a confused view of Lemarkism, not Darwinian theory of evolution. And remember, BILLIONS of years, not a scale of 5000-7000 (but even then, we have seen creatures come and go, selected out, breeded out).
    Saying you don’t believe in atheists is also a rather stupid statement to make – it’s like me saying I don’t believe in pastors, hence God is not real. Maybe you don’t mean “in”. When you say you don’t believe in someone, you either don’t believe their potential, their ability or their existence. I can assure you, atheists do exist.
    I will add this to conclude – I do believe in a deity, and that the deity sent his son to redeem the world, by sending him to the cross. But I do not believe that the collection of books written about him and his works are…. Well… You need to take a grain of salt to everything, even why it got canonised as part of the holy text in the first place. The Pentateuch were written in the desert, ages after the fact, seen through the lens of Joshua. I’m sure he didn’t witness creation, the flood, or even the covenant made with Abraham. Some parts of history were included in the holy text, the ones we see today, others not like Tobit, parts of the book of Daniel, the Maccabbes. Humans chose the order, chose what they wanted to read, wanted to believe. Humans wrote the words on the page, while inspired by God, can’t necessarily express perfectly what God means or says (could you as a pastor with 100% confidence claim that every word you say on Platform is God’s word, and you have no influence in it whatsoever?). To dismiss this understanding of science is also to dismiss everything that has derived from it – rational drug design, viral and bacterial trends, vaccination, genetic modification (okay, maybe some oppose this, but it wouldn’t even be possible without knowing and understanding evolution the way we do).

  • Kathryn elich
    Reply

    The rebellion does seem to grow within someone who claims to be. Difficult to live with one who rants their stance.
    Thank you for writing about this with objectivity. A good testimony, shown love and peace ready with a little fact is a drink of water to anyone who is trapped in this.

  • bharathi.s.
    Reply

    thank you sir.
    i am sharing this matter to my school going children.

  • Nicholas
    Reply

    Thanks Ev. Daniel. I agree. Wow “as conflicted as a child denying its mother”. I’m waiting for the responses to this blog because I’m sure you touched a nerve there.

pingbacks / trackbacks
  • […] good friend of mine sent me a link to this article and asked for my opinion:  I Don’t Believe in Atheists.  (I will quote specific parts of the article in my response below, but feel free to read the […]

Leave a Comment