First, let’s start with some science:

If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.

Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.

Life cannot come from non-life in the natural world.  Nothing living has ever been observed to be brought about by non-life.  This is a fact Louis Pasteur declared and still holds true today, despite attempts to the contrary.  The closest scientists have come to replicating life through their intelligent designs produces building blocks of sort, but not actual life.

This means, if all natural laws are followed, there can be no life.  Since staying within the system of the natural world would mean there is nothing living, and we observe life be the case, we are left with two possibilities.  The first is a philosophical one: maybe life and existence are not the same thing, and we can exist and be without actually living.  In other words, life is merely an illusion and we are not in the universe, in the environment we perceive to be in.  If this is true, we are grossly deceived about what is true and what is not true, and we have much to figure out–and science is no friend.  We must start from ground zero and reason–and reason alone–will show the true nature of things.

The second possibility is that there is something outside the system we perceive.  While the natural world shows that life cannot come from non-life, and we see life, we must conclude that something (or some force) exists outside what we call “nature.”  Life comes from the thing or this force outside of the system.  Not only must this thing be outside the system, but it must be able to alter the system of the natural world–thus it must be above nature.  We call this thing which has its being above nature “supernatural.”  Whatever this thing is, it exists outside nature and can affect nature at least enough so that it can alter or suspend natural laws that we have discovered through scientific inquiry.

A supernatural thing that is capable of altering the natural universe fits with the scientific facts we see today, not because this thing obeys the laws but rather because it can alter/suspend the laws.  The laws of biology and physics cannot change themselves or stop–they are mindless and blind.  The only way for any scientific laws to be ignorable would be if something outside the scientific system ignored them.  Since life is what we see today and life can only come from life, evolutionists are left in the bind of saying the law can be violated (and thus conceding any arguments over science since their opponents can say, “Well, this law was just violated for this instance”) or by allowing for the supernatural to intervene with the natural and produce the original life which leads to all other life.

There is no such thing as the science of origins, since origins have yet to be replicated, and since science says origins cannot be replicated through experiments.  Creation is not more “scientific” than spontaneous generation.  However, it does fit better with what we know from science, and that is the point being made here.  There had to be something that exists outside the system.

Advertisements

Here’s some great logic for you:

1. If there are frogs, they are purple.
2. If a purple frog exists, no ribbetting will be heard.
3. Ribbetting is heard.
4. No purple frog exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there are no frogs (from 1 and 4).

Thus by the Argument from Ranine Hiddenness we are able to conclude that no frog exists, even though our conclusion flies in the face of the observable fact that something out there – though clearly not a frog! – can be heard going ribbet, ribbet. And frankly, I think I’d be more impressed with the intellectual prowess exhibited by the average frog’s ribbets than by the cretins who produced this illogical drivel.

This is an accurate, parallel syllogism for the atheist’s Divine Hiddenness argument.

Makes sense?Christians have been taking the brunt end of atheist’s mockery for too long, thinking that long-winded thoughtful arguments in defense of Christianity will somehow win the argument in today’s soundbite culture.

People today simply do not have the patience to hear out somewhat advanced arguments in response to juvenile, immature jeers.  People would rather laugh than think.  People would rather feel a certain way about something rather than think about it.

The New Atheism does not present true arguments.  It presents irrational, toddler-like hatred for authority disguised in the wording of academia.  New atheism creates caricatures of Christianity because of how unsophisticated in thinking New Atheists are.  The big words they use obscure this fact.

Rather than respond to the irrational with the rational, rather than respond to emotions with reason, Christians ought to respond in kind–not “kindly,” which is a code word for “be nice.”  After all, why would anyone respond to a child’s temper tantrum by trying to reason with the child?