Is Science a Religion?

In my opinion, the belief in Science, per se, is not a “religion,” although to many people, Science has become their “religion.”

When we think of “Science,” we think of things that can be proven…, we think of facts.

Science is good, Science is helpful, Science is a necessity in our lives.

When we think of “Religion,” we think of a belief system that requires us to have faith in something that we can’t necessarily prove.

It can also be said that Religion is good, Religion is helpful, and that Religion is a necessity in our lives. 

From time to time I hear people, who supposedly are supposed to know something, smugly disregard those of us who believe in God, and mock the fact that we believe in something that can’t be scientifically proven.

Ok…, challenge accepted.

Let’s take a look then at what these people of Science choose to believe.

Let’s start our examination at the beginning, which is always a good place to start.

According to most astrophysicists, and according to NASA scientists, “’The big bang’ is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now (and it could still be stretching).”

We should add that “The big bang” is technically a theory at this point…, which means it has not been “proven.”

So, anyway, in the beginning there was nothing.

That, in itself, is hard to imagine. 

Then there was this single point of super, super, super-condensed matter.  I’ve heard this “point” described as the size of a pin head to the size of a pea, and ALL of the matter that exists is the universe now was compacted into this “point.”

So, where did this “pea” come from?

I guess, scientifically, that’s neither here nor there.

Then, inexplicably, this “pea” decided to explode.

BANG!

Although, technically, in space, there would be no sound.

Anyway, as a result of this exploded “pea” rippling out into the nothingness, our universe, and everything in it, was created.

Then after, supposedly, millions or trillions of years, our sun created itself, as did all of the planets in our solar system…, our own planet Earth being one of them.

Additionally, according to NASA, “How long did all of this take? Well, we now know that the universe is 13,800,000,000 years old—that’s 13.8 billion. That is a very long time.”

The real fact of the matter is NASA “knows” no such thing.  The age of our universe is at best a guess on their part.

Anyway, then, supposedly, more millions and millions of years pass by.

Then, in a puddle of primordial “soup,” containing just the right elements, which was laying around somewhere along a prehistoric sea, “life” was “born” in the essence of a single celled organism.

Now that is incredibly, incredibly, incredibly easier said than done.

Please keep in mind that a cell, even a single cell, is an extremely, extremely, extremely complex organism.

There must have been more than one, however, because in order to make the jump from a single cell organism to more complex organisms, we need multi-cell organisms to exist.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ScienceMag.org, and Elizabeth Pennisi, “The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all.”

Really?

“Billions of years ago, life crossed a threshold. Single cells started to band together, and a world of formless, unicellular life was on course to evolve into the riot of shapes and functions of multicellular life today, from ants to pear trees to people. It’s a transition as momentous as any in the history of life, and until recently we had no idea how it happened.”

You really still don’t, but I digress.

“The gulf between unicellular and multicellular life seems almost unbridgeable. A single cell’s existence is simple and limited. Like hermits, microbes need only be concerned with feeding themselves; neither coordination nor cooperation with others is necessary, though some microbes occasionally join forces. In contrast, cells in a multicellular organism, from the four cells in some algae to the 37 trillion in a human, give up their independence to stick together tenaciously; they take on specialized functions, and they curtail their own reproduction for the greater good, growing only as much as they need to fulfill their functions.”

And they just all decided to do this why?

And how exactly did these organisms “feed themselves?”

If these were the only living organisms on the planet, either they were cannibals or they ate rocks. 

Just sayin’.

Then millions of more years pass by before more complex creatures “created” themselves, with one organism eventually deciding to crawl out of the sea and live on land for some reason.

Then over a million years here and a million years there, this creature evolved into a human and we were off and running!

Taa daa!  

So, these people really believe that all of this just happened by accident, all on its own?

Now, I understand that if you don’t want to accept that there is a God, you have to come up with some kind of explanation as to how we and everything else got here, but this is the best you could come up with?

I mean, seriously. 

If you honestly stand back and take a look at this theory of macro-evolution (nobody disputes that micro-evolution occurs), you would have to admit that it would seem to take a lot more faith to buy-in to this “scientific” explanation of how everything came to be, than to believe there is a master creator and designer who is responsible.

So, yes…, at least in this regard, you would have to say that “Science” is some peoples’ Religion.  

If any of our “scientific” friends out there feel I have misrepresented your “scientific” belief of how the universe and life as we know it came about, please leave me a comment(s) as to where or what I am wrong about and I will publish a blog with your responses in it, or give you equal time if you choose to elaborate further.

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment.   I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

Two cases to be made for “creation” versus evolution.

Please refer to my blog from October 11, 2019, “You may not believe in ‘God,’ but you should at least believe in a ‘creator.’”

eye 8

There are many arguments and examples to be made that evolutionists can’t answer.

Here are two of my favorites.

Our first case in point is the human eye.

eye 7

Brian Thomas, PH.D. says, “The eye is very well-constructed.  Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image.  Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic.”

eye 6

Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote in a Scientific American article titled “Evolution of the Eye,”  “… only an intelligent agent—not passive, unthinking environmental factors—could fashion the massive collection of interdependent parts that form vertebrate eyes.”

“How could [evolutionary] ‘selection’ have precisely positioned the 12 muscles that adroitly move the eyeball in its socket, including the one that uses a pulley to properly swivel the eyes?  And even if perfectly formed eyes and eye-moving muscles had somehow managed to evolve, the apparatus still would have been useless without the involuntary computations that make both the left and right eyes move in concert.”

“In addition to overlooking these vital features, how could ‘selective [evolutionary] pressures have programmed the brain to convert raw light input into discernible mental images?”

“Magic words and logical fallacies are miserable substitutes for science or reason, but they are apparently the best explanatory tools available to those who are determined to find a purely naturalistic cause for eye origins.  Based on the evidence, the most logical source for the masterfully designed eye is a Master Designer.”

eye 9

I know evolutionists typically feel that given enough time anything can evolve into something else, but even in a hundred trillion years, the eye, with its cooperation between numerous muscles and its function, design and coordination with our brains, could not have “just happened” by virtue of mutations and evolutionary “selections.” Period.

The next case in point is the bombardier beetle.

The bombardier beetle has a special kind of defense mechanism, and an amazingly complicated one at that.

The beetle has twin “exhaust tubes” in his tail from which this beetle fires boiling-hot noxious gases into the face of his enemies.

eye 1

eye 2

German chemist Dr. Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone), which is a dangerous mixture.

The bombardier beetle, however, uses a special “inhibitor” chemical to keep the mixture from reacting and blowing itself up.

How then can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed?

Okay…, stay with me on this.

Dr. Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle, of course!

Common sense, something typically lacking in the liberal evolutionary mind, tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five “bombs” in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or any hopes for the future of our little bombardier beetle evolving into anything would have all gone up in smoke!

eye 3

The tiny bombardier beetle could not have possibly evolved.  Period.

I think this article successfully debunks the concept of macro evolution and shoots down the big, liberal, evolution lie.

All of the creatures in this world were designed to be just what they are, and are not the result of natural selection and evolution.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑