Atheists hold to dogma over data

This article is not an argument of whether or not evolution is true or not. But if it is, what conclusions can we make?

As we explore science, there are some things we can know with a high level of confidence. Many scientists (and yes, atheist scientists) are concluding that neo-Darwinism (DNA mutation via survival of the fittest) may not fully explain all the data we have. The probabilities of evolution occurring through this method alone are staggeringly low, to the point of bordering on impossible. Additionally, the fossil record shows instances of significant changes occurring abruptly, rather than gradually over time. As a result, scientists are exploring additional factors in the evolutionary process that will coincide with the data. Obviously, atheists are not abandoning evolution (after all they have no other option), but are instead saying other processes participated in the evolution process working together with neo-Darwinism. The exact nature of these mechanisms is currently uncertain, and there is no adequate naturalistic explanation. The data can more strongly be associated with intelligent design rather than a random process. Not because of a god-in-the-gaps argument, but because the data ever increasingly supports fine-tuning and design, which also continues to lower the probabilities for neo-Darwinism alone to explain the data. There are two ways atheists overcome these increasingly low probabilities. They either look at the directive power of science or rely on the multi-verse.

Many proposals have been presented to explain this discrepancy with the data and rely on the directive power of the scientific laws to address the challenges posed by the increasingly lowering probabilities. Basically for evolution to occur, it appears that science is inherently structured to make evolution an inevitable consequence. This notion raises foundational questions. Does the ever-increasing evidence for something directive in evolution point more toward atheism or intelligent design? And why is it that the more we grow in our understanding of science, the more evidence for fine-tuning? This ever-increasing evidence for fine-tuning is increasing the need for the directive force of science to account for these probabilities.

And this is the conundrum: how can we reconcile the probabilities and disparities between the data and theories while maintaining a completely random process? Atheists are left scrambling for an explanation. Though not established to explain this problem, the multiverse hypothesis is becoming an ever-increasing necessity to overcome this paradox, to account for fine-tuning and still allow for random chance.

In science, when there are differing explanations of the data, we do not throw them out in favor for our pet explanation or dogma. The differing explanations are held on to till the data can prove which ones to throw. The atheist, rather than being open to different explanations, rejects intelligent design outright, and holds onto the faith that though we currently do not have an explanation, science which has and continues to explain unknown things will provide these missing puzzle pieces in the future. And I am not saying this is wrong, maybe science will one day explain the ever-increasing fine-tuning and design we find. In fact, I expect it to be the case. Christianity does not hinge on whether or not there are scientific explanations or not. I assume that God, who is not chaotic, made the universe with science. Christianity has the freedom to be neutral and unbiased in any future endeavors to provide a scientific explanation for our universe. This allows Christians to truly be free to appreciate science without conflict. Science does not diminish our sense of wonder and awe of God. Unlike the atheists, we do not have only one necessary conclusion when it comes to the origin of life. But what has been clear is that atheists are forced to ignore the consistent, repeatable, and ever-growing evidence of fine-tuning and design that points to the possibility of intelligent design.

We must be careful in our language. I am not saying there is 100% proof, but that there is consistent evidence, nonetheless, that should not be ignored for intelligent design. It should be noted that as our scientific knowledge expands the stronger and stronger the case for intelligent design becomes. This is the opposite of what we would expect if intelligent design were a “god of the gaps” argument. Atheists would expect that the more we know about science, that science would fill in these gaps (the “science in the gaps” argument). The gaps in the science of evolution are increasing, not diminishing the more we know. And that pattern increases not diminishes even with the introduction of a possible multiverse.

When atheists say there is no evidence for intelligent design, they are putting on blinders and relying on blind faith that science will one day solve this dilemma, despite the evidence to the contrary. They are putting dogma before the data when they do not allow this possibility. They do not have to agree with it, but to say there is no evidence for intelligent design is ignoring the data. It is an irony that they are stunned by doing the very thing they accuse others of. But this kind of hypocrisy is common in atheist arguments. Science does not let go of a possibility, simply because they do not like it, but it allows for different explanations of the data, till more evidence allows for a more definitive direction. Blind faith however is ignoring a possibility despite the mounting evidence. Granted atheists may believe that one day evidence will go more their way and this consistent and repeatable pattern of increasing improbability will be overcome. But this stance is one of faith and relying on the science of the gaps. Science on the other hand is neutral. Science does not draw those conclusions, people with their biases do. Do we have 100% proof intelligent design is true? No. Does science say we won’t have an explanation? No. But the evidence for intelligent design is stronger than the atheist would lead others to believe.

Regardless of one’s position, whether atheist or theist, what neither of us can say is that the puzzle pieces that make our specific universe what it is don’t intricately come together in a fine-tuned dance that allows all that we know to exist. Even if there is an infinite multiverse with all probabilities playing out, in our specific universe this is clearly the case. Science does not provide alternatives to this, nor will further scientific discoveries diminish this intricate dance. Based on consistent and repeatable evidence, we can have confidence that the evidence for this will only get stronger the more we know about our universe. Nor does a multiverse diminish this. The criteria required for a multiverse generator remain complex and awe-inspiring. It advances the argument for fine-tuning rather than diminishing it. While there may be differing opinions regarding whether this suggests the existence of a deity, science compels us to appreciate the intricate fine-tuned nature of the universe. Science does not allow us to ignore this intricate beautiful and awe-inspiring dance. If the world was filled with unicorns or magic, we would lose our wonder of these things. I would argue science is more wondrous and miraculous than unicorns or magic.

Because of this evidence and data, atheists can’t say with integrity that a Christian does not follow the evidence or that the Christian is anti-science or that the Christian bases their beliefs on blind faith or that the Christian puts dogma over data. The Christian position has a robust foundation based on scientific principles. The Christian faith allows us to embrace the data rather than ignore it. God using science does not take away from our wonder and awe of who he is. Despite what atheists would like us to believe, science does not pose a threat to the Christian faith and the Christian faith is not blind.