Science Proves That There is No God? Incorrect!

It is a widely held belief in the UK that science has proved that God doesn’t exist. This is a total fallacy. Here is the reality:

1 “Evolution disproves God”. This is wrong in two respects. First, a Scientific theory is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence. In any case, evolution is full of fatal flaws (see Link 1 at end of article). Second, even if evolution were true, it is possible that God used it in His Creation. (many Christians believe this, albeit incorrectly). Nothing here disproves God.

2 “The Universe is vast and has existed for billions of years”. Neither of these contentions, correct or otherwise, has any relevance to proof for or against God.

3 “God has never been observed in a scientific experiment”. The relevant maxim here is “lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack”. Simply, just because we cannot observe something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In science, many things are unseen, but accepted because of evidence of what they do. For example, nobody has ever seen an electron; their existence is inferred from the behaviour of atoms and matter. In any case, if there is an Almighty God, He would presumably choose Himself when, where and how he reveals Himself (see Link 2 at end).

4 “If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?” This is a philosophical/religious question; nothing to do with science (Answer at Link 3 below if you need it).

5 “Science simply doesn’t believe in God”. That’s correct, but the reason is an a priori assumption that God doesn’t exist. An a priori or prior assumption is something you know or assume to be true without any research or experience. (See Wikipedia here.) It is most important to realise that this is a prior assumption of science, with zero evidence.

6 “The idea of God is not rational”. That statement is merely an assertion. It is not evidence.

7 “I don’t believe in God”. People believe or do not believe whatever they want. None of it constitutes scientific evidence.

8 “Scientists don’t believe in God”. This is very far from the truth, and even if it were true it would only be a matter of belief, not evidence. Scientists, like everyone else, have other agendas. Prof Richard Dawkins, for example, has a visceral hatred of the God of the Bible, which he proudly proclaims. That is not science. And Dawkins never produces profound scientific evidence for his assertions.

9 “People in the past thought the Earth was Flat”. This is really an assertion that people in the past were stupid and the idea of God arose from their stupidity. Actually, the Greek Eratosthenes not only knew the Earth was a sphere, but calculated its circumference with remarkable accuracy over two hundred years before Christ. It’s true that people in the past had less knowledge than we have today, but they were no less intelligent. The pyramids were not built by idiots! People in the past achieved remarkable things with limited technology demonstrating just how capable they were. However, appeals to past ignorance can sometimes be valid. For example, Darwin’s theory was based in part on his total ignorance of both the complexity of the living cell and Genetics. Appeals to ignorance must always be justified specifically, as in this case.

This article is not dealing with the evidence that God does exist. It’s purpose is to clear the air of the gross misconception that science somehow proves He doesn’t. If you are still not clear on this, and you imagine that there really is scientific evidence disproving God, please state it below. We will add your statement to this article anonymously, together with a clear explanation of why it is not scientific evidence. Find current responses below the form.

Link 1  Darwinian Evolution is Bunk

Link 2 Understanding God

Link 3 If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?

See also Darwin Exposes Himself and Geology – The Rocks Really do Cry Out

(Before making a submission please be sure that you know the difference between true science, which is based upon repeatable experiments, forensic science, and mathematical/theoretical science. If offering evidence for Darwinian Evolution, be sure you know the difference between Darwin’s Molecules to Man evolution and Variation in a Kind, sometimes respectively referred to as macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Everybody, including school textbooks, loves to offer evidence of the latter as evidence for the former. If you can’t think of a solid piece of evidence for Darwin’s theory to offer here, it’s time to stop believing in it.)


Submission 11/08/18.       Evolution of the Horse.  

There is a huge amount of (dis)information on the internet and elsewhere about the supposed evolution of the horse over 55 million years. Evolutionist (Note, Evolutionist, not Creationist) Boyce Rensberger’s statement hits the nail on the head:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

(My bolding in the above quote.) As with all gradual, alleged evolution, the essential transitional fossils are missing. The alleged transitional fossils are actually distinct species, which themselves lack evidence of their own evolution. It must be remembered that Darwin’s theory involves inorganic molecules gradually changing into men; fuzzy stories about one four-legged mammal turning into another four-legged mammal are very definitely not profound evidence for the first of these propositions. But such invalid evidence is regularly presented as the best there is. The huge amount of information on the web regarding horse evolution makes it clear that it is of great importance in proving evolution. Normally, nobody would put forward weak or flawed evidence in hopes of winning a debate. Evolutionists do it in this case because there is no better evidence. And if the alleged horse evolution is as good as it gets, evolution has around four less legs to stand on than the horse.

A further point is that many of the alleged evolutionary trees, at least in part, show one kind of horse evolving into another. This is simply Variation within a Kind, not Darwinian “one thing changes into something completely different.”