Open Letter to an Atheist
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder against God and those who think that
He -- rather than millions years (of genetic accidents) made us: by putting the information
from our parents' DNA into a space that's smaller than the period at the end of
this sentence: for that is how big we were when first conceived.
the thought of Someone greater than you, who actually made you, cause you to question your own
we and the
world do in fact exist, and since something cannot come from nothing, then
Whoever made us is God. In this regard, as far as we
know from empirical science, a non-person
or non-biological piece of matter or chemical cannot give birth to something
that has DNA and that is programmed to be alive, nor can matter or chance
create new information. And since all living things
contain DNA (which stores information), and since information has only been
observed to come from intelligence: i.e. live thinking beings like
ourselves, then the impersonal, normally destructive, forces of nature,
cannot be our Creator. This is confirmed by the fact that we are all
individuals with different names, dates, and places of birth, that make
each of us unique. In other words, we are each a 'who' as opposed to a
what; therefore it
makes sense that we came from a 'Who' as opposed to a non-living thing. This
is confirmed by actual observation: i.e. cows give birth to cows,
dogs to dogs, cats to cats, etc. And in regard to humans, we are told
that God made us in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1-3).
be deceived, this is NOT about
"religion" but about truth: the truth of how we all came to
As far as we know, the (non-thinking, and normally destructive), "forces of nature"
can't even make the
simplest protein, much less create the DNA structure and add an
information to it.
were designed and created by intelligent people. They are also
quite complex -- so much so that even people with College degrees would agree
that nature did not, nor could it, make one: even in many billions of years. Computers are like DNA in that they store
information and use it to make things. In the case of personal computers, they
are used to create,
copy, print and manipulate documents, letters, images, and
programs. In the case of DNA, the information contained therein is used,
first to construct a specific life-form (such as an amoeba, a worm, a
whale, or a human), and then that information is used to make proteins
that digest food, cause growth, and keep that life-form alive.
Biologists and microbiologists are also realizing that living things are more complex than computers and
other man-made things that have all been designed by intelligent people: and
none of which came about by accident. However,
man-made storage devices store information in two
dimensions, while DNA uses three. Computers also cannot
replicate, nor do they exist in different sexes.
is supposed to be a search for the truth, no matter where it leads: even if it points
toward an Intelligent Being whom most
refer to as God.
God made the earth, and made it habitable for life, and designed
all life forms and programmed their DNA, then that makes Him
both the Creator and our (personal) Creator.
stores Information ... And
information is not just "atoms" or
random data, as the following illustrations make clear: one of which depicts
plain old atoms, and the other, those that are arranged to form letters of the
English alphabet, like the words on this page.
since some people who claim to be "scientists" (or truth
seekers) have been, and still are, trying to exclude any and
all creative intelligence from the discussion of how we all came to be, this means
that science has been "high jacked" and
made into a
religion of what some people say, and/or WANT to be true:
i.e. that all living things just (sort of somehow) came about slowly ... over millions of years, and that
no Creator is behind the creation ... and that their beliefs are based on "science."
priests have declared themselves wiser than the public, and thus they pretend to know
the truth of how we, and all other life-forms, came to be. But in
reality they hate the truth because it points toward an Intelligence that is
far beyond our own, and that tells those willing to hear that Someone greater
than us made us, and the earth, and all other life-forms. This is
confirmed simply by the fact that DNA stores information and uses it to make
all sorts of different proteins: and to copy itself and even split up and
make a new cell. Yet to read its own information requires (already)
built-in microcopy machines known as DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, a motor-protein
known as helicase, a supply of chemical energy (known as ATP), and
many other ('transcription factor') proteins: that must have been in place
(all at the same time) for the cell to work -- and which
are so complex that none would come about by chance alone: even in many trillions
fact is that scientists can't even demonstrate how to make all 20 amino acids: much less how they could come together to form a single protein:
apart from a pre-existing cell with pre-programmed DNA.
not your ultimate goal to remove God and His influence from your
life? Is not this the reason why you become so animated, if not
upset, when the "G" word comes up? Is it not true that you
want to cover up and try to hide God's very existence and rob Him of the credit
for which He
is due for making us? Is it not a fact that if you could you
would terminate (or kill) God and remove Him from His own universe just to keep Him from
having any control over your life? At least this is what we are told in Psalm 2. I.e. "Let us get rid of God and His Son and cast off
their cords from us."
not this whole debate about the fact that you don't want to even think about
the implications of what the truth implies: i.e. that IF God made us, and all
other life-forms, and the earth, then, by that fact alone, He has the right to
influence, what He made: to the point of declaring what is right and wrong.
is the debate said to be about ''science'' vs. ''religion'' when neither
the atheists who say this, nor their "science" can demonstrate how the most simple one-celled bacteria -- nor
even a single life-based
protein – can come about by natural forces: apart from
In this regard an article on this subject
states bluntly that:
are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already
living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what
(has been) taught." 1
who question the above may be interested to know that scientists have yet to
even make all 20 different amino acids (that cells use to build proteins) without using already existing bacteria
or other biological organs. To verify this simply
search online for, "Can scientists make all 20 amino acids" (from
scratch) or "how scientists make proteins." Inevitably one
will find that they use bacteria or other pre-existing biological organisms.
God is the Creator, then it makes sense that He used His intelligence to Design
the way that our heart pumps blood and works in conjunction with our lungs
(and our environment) to carry oxygen throughout our body, and that our eyes
were Designed to see and our ears to hear and our minds to think.
And since DNA also has not been observed to make itself from chemicals, much
less program itself, then why should we believe that it did so in the past?
Is it not true that
we are more complicated and aware than frogs,
worms, or amoebas, and that life itself is more complicated than rocks,
minerals, or chemicals? In fact, life is more complex than anything
mankind has yet made: including cars,
airplanes, computers, and even a walking-talking robot that was Designed and Programmed
by highly trained engineers and programmers who used their intelligence to do so.
With carbon and the
right machinery, scientists can make a diamond, yet they can’t make an amoeba, nor
an ant, nor a blade of grass, nor design
new type of self-replicating organism: at least not yet. Isn't this because living things are
more complex, if not much more so, than rocks
Designed .... but evolved (???)
was the claim of those who want to explain the "appearance of
Design" without a Designer: regarding (biological / DNA
programmed) plant-hopper) gears.
The article's author concluded it with the following:
a minute. How do we know these gears evolved, as opposed to having been
designed? Because we know that everything in biology evolved. And how do we
know that everything evolved? Because we know that nothing was designed.
Right. But how do we know that nothing was designed? Because we know
got it now. Everyone clear?"2
only one (highly biased) viewpoint about our origin is welcome in our public schools
and the halls of science, then how can that be called "freedom" of
thought: or freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads?
education and "science" supposed to be a search for the truth: no matter where it
If so then it's wrong, if not evil, to exclude intelligence and Creation from the debate: whether in an open
forum on a college campus, public square, or the classrooms and halls of our educational system:
and especially that which is funded by the people with tax dollars.
Mutations do the Trick?
to some proponents of evolution, DNA error-correction mechanisms that exist
today were not always around, but suddenly came into existence at some point:
i.e. after each life form arrived at where it is now -- after multitudes of favorable mutations
created) time and again, all sorts of long chains of favorable alterations in
organism after organism -- over millions and millions of years: ... and thus
(are said to)
account for all life forms on Earth today. In a book on origins, science
and creation, the authors make the following comments in this regard:
theoretical production of a higher or more complex form (of life) by the
accumulation of beneficial mutations is such a slow process that it is
admitted ... to be unobservable. This ... accounts in large measure for
the desire by evolutionists to increase the span of geological time, in spite
of much evidence that the earth is actually quite young. In any case,
... it is ... unscientific for a theory of science to ... rely on
non-demonstrable hypothetical processes for its basic mechanism."
models have been set up to test the possibility of advancement of an
information code ... by selection from random variations ... (however,) The
results indicate that loss rather than gain inevitably results."
Nelson goes into much more detail on the
subject of mutations
creating complexity in a video on youtube. Dr. Stephen Meyer also
discusses this in a book called Signature in the
Ancestry or Common Creator?
assert that since many different types of life have similar things in common
that this is clear evidence that they "inherited them from previous
ancestors," but in this regard you fail to mention the just as likely --
if not much more likely -- scenario of a common Designer / Creator using
similar tools to accomplish similar tasks. For example, wheels come in
all different sizes and types, as do ball bearings, screw-drivers, and beams,
yet they are used in all sorts of different things that were each made by
people. So the common ancestry assertion doesn't "hold water,"
much less prove that we evolved.
it be that your hatred toward God or the thought of Judgment has played a part in
the hostility and anger that you often display toward those who believe
in God? Or is it simply that you may be wrong about what you say (you know)
to be a "fact"?
is it because you want to be feared and obeyed as if you were God:
even though you didn't make yourself, nor can you make an ant, or an amoeba,
nor a synthetic blade of grass?
not a "fact" that your jobs are on the line, and that your superiors require
you to “toe the line,” regarding their evolutionist, "no-God-allowed" beliefs?
you aware that many founders of modern science were Creationists who believed
in God -- and that He made the earth, and life: including them?
Robert Boyle is called the founder of Chemistry, Isaac Newton
invented calculus, Mendel is the father of genetics, and Pasteur discovered
germs and disproved the belief that life came from non-life?
Did you know that all of these men were Christians who believed the bible
and that God and Jesus made the universe, and us?
Or is your bias
against God linked to the
fact that you don’t want anyone telling you how to live, nor about right and
wrong, and a God who says He and His Son are coming back to assert authority over
the world they made?
Evidence that God Created Life, Thomas F. Heinze, www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm
2. Mechanical Gears Discovered
on Planthopper Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize, or Deny, Design,
by Casey Luskin,
and Creation, Morris, Boardman, and Koontz, 1971, p. 39
2013, 2016, www.earthage.org
Permission granted to copy,
mass-produce, reproduce, post on your website or blog, and/or distribute as you like
Proof of a Creator
Letter to Atheist
If atheism were Science?
Which is More
People Believe in Evolution
Geneticist Defends his Beliefs