Atheistic Arrogance Revisited

Buon giorno. Today's visit will not be loaded with references and proofs. Instead, it will be a philosophical discussion to spur mental activity within people who are actually capable of rational thought.

This was sparked by Lee Strobel's book, The Case for a Creator. An atheistic journalist with a background in law, Strobel tells of his discussions with extremely qualified scientists and how he lost his faith in atheism. Yeah, Zeke, I know that's what you're afraid of, but carry on, anyway, willya?

The Case for a Creator goes against my grain in that it takes an old earth view, and I am a young earth Creationist and Catastrophist (read: global flood at the time of Noah). But he still manages to bring up some extremely powerful evidences against random chance and evolutionism.

This is not an actual book review, and I want to make it clear that I'm putting my words in here as well as Strobel's words.

In my own thinking, scientists are rejecting established cosmology and assumptions, but the orthodox scientific philosophy does not like to make that widely known. When I was teaching Creation Science about fifteen years ago, there were books available going against the establishment, such as The Big Bang Never Happened. That was certainly not a Creationist book, the author came up with another philosophy entirely that was outlandish. His problem was simple: Orthodox scientific philosophy did not have the facts on its side.

I liked one area that Strobel emphasized, how scientists like to say that the Earth is nothing special, just another rock in space like millions of others. The problem is that there are too many special considerations and extreme coincidences that have to be in place to make life possible on Earth. It is all a very delicate balance, including the orbit of the moon, distance from the sun, the sun's position in the galaxy (too close, radiation from the galactic center will make all life impossible, for instance), the kind of galaxy that we are in and so forth.

When you get into astronomy, geology, biochemistry and everything else, you can see that everything happening by chance is laughable. Saying that there is a creator is a logical part of the process, capice? Even simple cells are astonishingly complex, and we keep moving up into more difficult processes. Complicated systems within complicated systems — smacks of intelligent design, doesn't it?

I have had to deal with the faith of orthodox science many times, and people insist on following the blind, gibbering mad god of random chance, despite all the evidence that they are full of hooey. (I've known people who are willing to believe the impossible, that our position in this universe is a series of fantastic coincidences. Oh, please.) And remember, evolutionism is the justification for leftist political philosophies, but never mind about that now.

And these clowns have the audacity to say that I'm a fool for believing that the evidence points to a Creator! Agonizing. True science is willing to go where the evidence leads, and not ignore possibilities that do not fit the presuppositions of modern scientific philosophies. How scientific is this? Even though the evidence is not there, or contrary to what is observed, just believe in evolution, discoveries will be made to vindicate our beliefs. That is not science, that is faith!

One book title I remember is The Wisdom of Evolution. Uh, last I knew, the only thing that could have wisdom would be an intelligent entity, not the processes of random chance. The arrogant atheist wants to destroy my faith and have me replace it with his mad god. Fuggedaboudit! The evidence is on my side, and I can't help it if he is going to choose to be willfully ignorant.

Anyway, back to Lee Strobel. I am giving a qualified recommendation for The Case for a Creator. It will show to anyone with the ability to think that the evidence does indeed point to a Creator. Here's my response to that silly "poster" at the top of the page: