Big Bang to Man Evolution Is Atheistic Mythology

 Atheists often argue that atheism has no mythology, but when you think about it, the Big Bang to Man evolutionary story is really just a story with atheistic roots. They try to claim that it is scientific, but in reality, it is still atheistic.

Inherently Atheistic 

Big Bang to Man Evolution is atheistic because it leaves God out of the picture. Unlike sciences such as physics, chemistry, and most of biology, this line of thinking is not trying to understand how things work, but rather how they originated. There is a big difference between the two and its effect on conclusions about whether or not you include God. Much of this story has its origins among atheists who were talking about universal common descent evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born. For example, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was talking about it.

Napoleon was informed by Marquis De Laplace, who was an atheist, that his explanation of the solar system's beginnings did not require the involvement of God. While it is true that a Catholic priest proposed the concept of the Big Bang, he had already disregarded the Biblical account of creation and embraced atheistic ideas and conclusions. Therefore, the narrative of the Big Bang leading to the existence of mankind was either formulated by atheists or individuals influenced by their ideologies.

You don't have to be an atheist except these theories

Though one need not be an atheist to accept the Big Bang to human evolution story, some who believe in God and accept this narrative hold contradictory views without acknowledging the inconsistency. Humans often cling to mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously, accepting what we were taught rather than logically analyzing our positions.

The connection goes beyond the concept origins

The link between the Big Bang and evolutionary theory and atheism extends beyond the origins of these concepts. Fundamentally, this historical model presumes absolute naturalism, excluding God as an explanation without first examining the evidence. As such, it represents an atheistic philosophical view of history. Moreover, it is the sole historical model of Earth's and the universe's evolution consistent with atheistic worldviews.

This view of history attempts to explain our existence without invoking God. The reaction to creation science and intelligent design clearly demonstrates this naturalistic perspective. These ideas are immediately rejected by institutional science and those adhering unquestioningly to the naturalistic historical view. Online discussions quickly reveal that notions of intelligent involvement in human origins are dismissed out of hand, often treated on par with believing in a flat earth. This dismissal is not merely figurative but frequently quite literal.

Artificially inserting God

Yes, you can artificially insert God into this model, but it is just an artificial insertion. This entire model of history is completely naturalistic, there is no place in it for God. Trying to believe both, is literally trying to believe two things there are logically exclusive. While it is possible to imagine God using this theoretical process to create everything, It is not logically consistent to do so. This model of history was designed from its inception for the most part to explain our existence apart from God. To insert him you have to relegate God to an agency that leaves no detectable traces and is nothing but a God of the gaps. This is not the God of the Bible, but one made up so that people can have it both ways.

Conclusion

The Big Bang to human evolution narrative is essentially an atheistic myth. This perspective on the origins of the universe and life is rooted in atheism. A close examination of the history and philosophy behind it reveals an inherently atheistic worldview. For atheists, it represents the sole coherent explanation for existence. To be an intellectually consistent atheist, one must accept this account of cosmic and biological origins. At its core, the Big Bang to human evolution story is atheistic mythology.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The label of science denier.

The act of labeling someone as a science denier is an Ad hominem, which is a personal attack that draws a parallel to Holocaust deniers. These individuals, who sympathized with the Nazis, denied the undeniable truth of the Holocaust despite the abundance of evidence. In essence, by using this label, creationists are being compared to Nazi sympathizers.

Notion Behind this Label 

The concept behind this label assumes that the individual using it believes a specific theory to be an indisputable scientific fact. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with this theory is simply seen as denying it. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that there can be valid reasons for questioning even well-established scientific principles. One possibility is that the person being labeled has not been properly introduced to the concept. Another valid reason could be a lack of trust in the concept due to the individuals advocating for it, as exemplified by the skepticism surrounding climate change. A third legitimate reason is the identification of potential flaws in the idea. Whether or not these concerns are valid is a separate matter, but it is important to note that calling someone names will not convince them that they are mistaken about something. 

This tendency to resort to name-calling is a common issue among proponents of evolution, indicating their inability to effectively address objections. When they believe they can provide a satisfactory response to an objection, they will do so. However, inevitably, evolutionists will eventually resort to name-calling, with "science denier" being one of the terms used.

Problems with Using this Derogatory Label 

Using this derogatory label presents a significant issue due to a misunderstanding of creationists. Apart from the comparison to Nazi sympathizers, the label also suggests an irrational motive for rejecting evolutionary theory. However, there are numerous rational grounds for dismissing the concept of universal common descent evolution. The primary reason is the lack of demonstrated evidence for its mechanism's capability. For universal common descent to be plausible, it must possess a means of generating new intricate and specific information. Organisms must somehow acquire the necessary information to develop structures such as hearts, lungs, different blood cell types, wings, and various other complex features found in every living cell. Prior to asserting universal common descent as a viable explanation for life's diversity, it is imperative to demonstrate its feasibility. Without substantial amounts of genuinely new complex information, not duplications or degenerative mutations, but entirely novel information capable of producing previously nonexistent complex structures, this stands as one of several highly logical grounds for rejecting universal common descent evolution.

Some evolutionists have ceased to view science as a combination of theory and data, instead displaying signs of perceiving themselves as the embodiment of science. This mindset is apparent in the case of Dr. Fauci, renowned for his involvement in COVID-19, who, when questioned about the science, replied that he was the science. Even if such a remark was meant to be lighthearted, it nevertheless reveals their perception of their connection to science.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the same people who are calling creationists and others whom they disagree with, science deniers, regularly deny the obvious scientific fact that we are born male and female based on our genetics and that it is not something that is a matter of how you feel. 

Conclusion

In the end, the utilization of such a derogatory term demonstrates a lack of willingness and even incapacity to handle differing opinions. If proponents of evolution were truly impartial and receptive as they assert, they would refrain from employing such derogatory terms. They would be open to listening to those who hold opposing views and make an effort to comprehend their standpoint. Nevertheless, their response towards both creation science and intelligent design reveals an attitude of superiority that, even if they were correct, would hinder them from gaining any knowledge from their adversaries.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The label of pseudoscience.

Evolutionists often refer to creation science as pseudoscience. It's a pejorative phrase that's often used for any idea that challenges the largely accepted beliefs of institutionalized science. For the most part, it is an attempt to maintain the status of science inside institutionalized science.

The term pseudoscience 

There are two acceptable applications for the term "pseudoscience," which effectively means "fake science." The first is willful deception by those pushing the concept question. This word can also be used to refer to science fiction. To make what is happening in a science fiction story at least sound scientific, one may, for instance, construct some scientific-sounding vocabulary.

Not an official term

The lack of an authoritative source for this label's application is one of its main issues. That is, the definition and designation of pseudoscience are not determined by a controlling body. As such, there is nowhere to file an appeal over the label. It is just used as a pejorative phrase, and everyone who has a position to which it is applied is forced to defend their position against the label regardless of the facts. The fact that those who use the designation typically dismiss any proof that they are incorrect only serves to exacerbate the situation.

The application of the label

It also ignores the reality that there are many kinds of science and that not all bad science is the same as phony science. There is no proof that someone engaged in false science if they follow the scientific method but get incorrect findings due to a careless technique. Even though their research was subpar, it is nevertheless authentic.

It is also noteworthy that people who use the term "pseudoscience" struggle to define it precisely, and consistently. They do not apply the label to ideas they embrace, including universal common descent evolution. In actuality, though, this is just a term applied by people who use it to refute a scientific opinion that they find objectionable.

The use of such derogatory terms

The frequent use of such disparaging language is a callous method of handling people who have different opinions from you. The use of such terminology, frequently, stems from the user's incapacity to adequately explain their stance.

It is regrettable that such disparaging language appears in scientific discourse. Language like this should never be used in research if it is truly to be understood as an investigation of truth rather than a means of advancing a particular goal. It's interesting to note that the two domains where they appear most frequently are those about origins and "climate change." This is because none of these are genuinely scientific; rather, they are all elitist tools. As a result, they are unable to tolerate rivalry or simply questioning. This is the primary cause of the widespread usage of disparaging language in these areas. 

Conclusion

Ignoring these kinds of disparaging labels as much as you can is the wisest course of action. When necessary, draw attention to the disparaging connotations associated with terms like "pseudoscience" and provide evidence for its fallibility.  However, as one of their goals is to divert attention from more important matters while instilling a sense of superiority in the user, it is advisable to ignore them whenever feasible.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The anti-science label

The term “anti-science” is one of several derogatory terms that evolutionists use against creationists. You’ll find some Christians for whom this charge is correct, but it’s not a label that’s accurately associated with creationists. In fact, most active creationists embrace science. The issue that most creationists face is the promotion of atheistic mythology disguised as science.

Definition of Anti-science

The legitimate meaning of anti-science refers to a collection of attitudes that encompass the denial of science and the scientific method. Evolutionists and others commonly define it as the rejection of mainstream scientific perspectives and methodologies or the substitution of unproven or intentionally deceptive theories. These two definitions differ significantly. The first definition pertains to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles, such as the scientific method, on a general level. On the other hand, the second definition targets specific theoretical concepts advocated by established scientific institutions. In essence, the first definition, which is a valid usage of the term, rejects science as a whole, while the second definition is employed to criticize those who dispute particular claims made within the realm of science. The disparity between these definitions is substantial. By the way, in the second definition, I will leave it to your imagination to determine who holds the authority to decide whether a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.

Ignored in Usage of Derogatory Terms 

The usage of derogatory labels often overlooks the fact that challenging and disagreeing with widely accepted scientific concepts has historically played a crucial role in the advancement of science. Had this mindset prevailed in the early 20th century, groundbreaking theories like Special and General Relativity, as well as Quantum Mechanics, would have been rejected. Esteemed scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck would have been dismissed as anti-science. Derogatory labels are employed to protect certain ideas that are presented as scientific facts, despite being highly questionable. This tendency is often driven by philosophical and political motivations. For instance, the philosophical connection between universal common descent evolution and atheism, or the leftist origins of the belief in man-caused climate change.

Political Nature of Use of Derogatory Terms 

The political nature of the use of such derogatory terms is evident by the fact, that people who have opposed mandatory masks, closedowns, and vaccines, because such mandates are an attack on individual liberty are finding this label applied to them whether or not they are questioning the scientific claims involved. Those using these labels are basically saying that you not only have to agree with them in these areas, but you also have to allow them to decree what solutions you must follow.

Tyranny of the Experts

A tyranny of the experts is precisely what allowed the Catholic Church to maintain its authority for numerous centuries. The beginning of their decline in power occurred when ordinary individuals gained access to the Bible in their native tongue and could interpret it independently. What exacerbates the severity of the present form of tyranny of the experts is that one is not deemed an expert unless one aligns with specific perspectives.

Personal Experience

When I was in college, I had a hard time understanding both Relativity and quantum mechanics. Part of the problem was that the textbooks presented them as mathematical abstractions in need of a physical explanation. I worked on such an explanation for many years and even developed a  good model. I did this because I had time to work on it. However, my model made a prediction which I was able to prove to be wrong. I also discovered a solution to my problems with both theories at the same time. Not only do I understand both theories better today, but you will find that I defend them better than people who blindly accept them. It also led me to find a way to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics which is what I am working on now. This is because of the freedom to investigate. The tyranny of experts doesn’t allow this.

Conclusion

To put it another way, the use of terms like "anti-science" implies that the point of view of those who use them is the only correct one. They claim that anyone who does not agree with that point of view is an enemy of science. In fact, this is an anti-science stance all on its own, because it denies that scientific thought is contingent.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? 

Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution

The Myth of Junk DNA

The Use of the Word Science by Evolutionists

 Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, some creationists declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist needs to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented with evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer-reviewed journals of institutionalized science.

Often for evolutionists, it is not about whether or not the research is done properly, whether it is done with good scientific methodology, or even how well the researcher follows the scientific method. When you get into a discussion, unless the data or research has been anointed by the high priests of scientism, and anointed with the blessing of their peer review, most evolutionists refuse to recognize it as science. Without this blessing, they do not want to even hear what you have to say. in the minds of such people once this blessing is given it magically becomes science, and it must be labeled pseudoscience without it. While they may not use such terminology, it illustrates the point, that they hold to peer review by the right people with a religious fervor particularly when they are admitted atheists.

This bubble of protection in which evolutionists place the Big Bang to man evolutionary theory is not restricted to protection against creationists, but anyone who dares present data that contradicts the evolutionary model. It is a natural result of the viewpoint that has been given a monopoly in public education. It is by protecting evolutionary theory from challenges that most students can go through their entire education, including graduate work, and never encounter any weaknesses in evolutionary theory except maybe in ridicule. The key to this bubble of protection is not allowing any opposition to this view of human origins to be considered science.

 It all pretty much boils down to that to qualify as science by evolutionists, atheists must accept it, and it has to be approved by the right people. A major part of this process is the tendency to confuse the operational science of studying how the universe works in the present, with historical science that tries to develop a story about the past based on present-day information. The problem here is that because we cannot directly observe the past and thereby see what actually happened, assumptions need to be made. Consequently, any story invented about the past is only as accurate as the assumptions that are behind it. For example, if you assume only natural processes, but God exists and has been active in our past in a supernatural manner then you will get this story entirely wrong. You would be completely incapable of seeing and as the Bible says be “willingly ignorant” of the true history of the world and the universe. Sadly, in most cases, the stories about the past invented by evolutionists do not come with disclaimers making these assumptions clear.

The point is that when you hear an evolutionist speak about science, you have to ask yourself which way he is using science, and whether will he change how he is using it during the discussion. Realize that while much of what they say might have a basis in actual science, is largely theoretical conjecture that assumes the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists will deny such assumptions, but many of them are not even aware of it themselves. You can use assumptions without being aware of them, simply because they are parts of other assumptions you are making or other principles that you already accept.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

Science and the Study of the Past

 How good science is at studying the past is a central point to the discussion of origins. One of the primary assumptions made by evolutionists is that the past can be studied and understood as easily as the present functioning of the universe can. They seem to think that the same degree of certainty can be obtained about the present functioning of the universe and its past. They do this by ignoring the fact that while we can see how the universe operates today, we cannot observe the past. This means that studying the past requires a lot of philosophical assumptions to be applied when interpreting evidence.

When we are studying the operating principles of the universe in the present, we can focus on specific observations and experiments in the present to see what the results are. However, we cannot actually see the past. Even when observing a distant object in space we cannot observe what could be seen before we looked through the telescope. As a result, we cannot actually test the past, because everything we see we observe in the present. If more than one theory can produce what we currently see in the universe, you cannot distinguish between them scientifically, except by eliminating a possibility by showing that it could not have happened.

What about forensics, you may ask? Yes, forensics is dealing with the past, but it is also not perfect. It is actually a good example of how science can go wrong when dealing with the past. In forensics, the forensic scientist on the case looks at the evidence and tries to construct a theory about what happened. Sometimes that theory is wrong because there is another factor for which there is no evidence. In fact, this is one of the reasons why the longer a case lingers the less likely it is to be solved. That is because evidence tends to degrade with time. It is also interesting to note, that forensics is in part about finding intelligent involvement in a past event, however, evolutionists exclude intelligent involvement as a starting assumption.

This is a key problem when trying to study history scientifically, that is you have to make assumptions about the past. A key assumption made by institutionalized science is absolute naturalism. This assumption eliminates the possibility of any intelligent involvement in the origin and subsequent history of the Earth and the universe. It excludes any divine involvement and therefore it excludes history as described in the Bible before any evidence is even looked at. You see the Bible describes two major supernatural acts of God in Earth’s history, Creation, and the Genesis Flood. If you try to determine the history of the Earth, based on the assumption that only natural processes were involved, you have to assume that these two events never occurred. Consequently, if these events actually did occur as described in the Bible and you tried dating the earth based on naturalistic presuppositions, you will inevitably derive an age for the earth that is much older than it really is. This is because both of these events would have thrown off the dating methods that are used.

A prime example of this is the age of the Earth. Institutionalized science commonly gives an age for the earth of 4.5 billion years. This figure assumes that the earth formed naturalistically by collapsing out of a cloud of dust and gas, however, few people realize that the paper also states that if it did not form that way it could be any age younger than 4.5 billion years. By the way, while not specifically stated in the paper 6,000 years is less than 4.5 billion years. This of course is just one of many examples, but it makes the point quite well.

The problem with trying to scientifically study history is that we do not have access to the past and so we have to make assumptions. Consequently, any theory about the history of the earth or the universe or anything else in it requires making assumptions that can never be tested. As a result, these theories are only as good as the assumptions behind them.

So, while it is possible to apply scientific methodology to past events, it is limited by the fact that we can only observe what exists in the present. Because we cannot observe past events, we need to rely on the records and other evidence about the past that we can study in the present. One of the problems that result from this, is the fact that it is always possible to add extra hypothetical events to a model to explain away problems with the original concept. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for this because there are other clues, but it is far too easy for such just-so stories to be invented to patch a theory about the past. However far too often it is extremely difficult and even impossible to test these stories. It is a major reason why science is limited when studying the past.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science

The Real Nature of Science

 Science is at the heart of the question of origins and the age of the earth. Evolutionists like to claim that science shows the universe evolved from a super dense super-hot state in what is commonly called the Big Bang and that the Earth collapsed from a cloud of dust and gas about 4.5 billion years ago. They also claim that life formed naturally from lifeless chemicals and then evolved into all the living things we see today including man. They further deny any legitimacy of creation science. However, discussing origins or any other topic scientifically requires knowing what science is.

Science is not a collection of unquestionable facts, but it is actually a methodology for acquiring knowledge. This methodology is known as the scientific method. While you can find some variations in the exact wording, the basic concept is as follows:

1. Define the problem.
2. Develop a hypothesis that solves the problem.
3. Performing an experiment or observation to test the hypothesis.
4. If the hypothesis does not fit the experiment or observation repeat #2.
5. If the hypothesis is a close fit to the experiment or observation refine the hypothesis and repeat #3.
6. If the hypothesis agrees with the experimental observation, then write up the results.
7. Report the results of your work.

In many ways, this is a trial-and-error process, and each step is not always carried out by the same individual. For example, theoretical work is often tested by others who have the skills and or equipment to do the actual experiments or observations. A key point to note is that the hypothesis needs to make one or more testable predictions in order to be able to develop an experiment or observation that will test it.

So, what makes something scientific? First of all, there is nothing in this process that requires a naturalistic hypothesis. The key requirement is that your hypothesis has to produce at least one testable prediction the failure of which will show the hypothesis to be false, to qualify as scientific. There is a tendency within academia and institutionalized science to add the restriction that a hypothesis needs to be a totally naturalistic explanation. The justification for this is that you can explain away anything by throwing it under the label of supernatural, however, that is only true if that is only as far as you take it. After all the same argument can be made with the general label of naturalistic. If you are dealing with a specific supernatural event, that leaves detectable evidence then it is a testable hypothesis and would still qualify as scientific. The same thing goes for including intelligent agency, as long as an intelligence leaves testable evidence behind from its activity, then such a hypothesis can be considered scientific. In fact, both forensics and archaeology distinguish intelligent activities from natural phenomena. Any rule excluding either intelligent or supernatural explanations is an artificial limitation based on philosophical presuppositions that eliminate the possibility of God as an explanation before any data is actually looked at. The simple fact is, that as long as an explanation produces one or more predictions the failure of which shows the hypothesis to be false, it can be considered scientific regardless of the nature of that hypothesis. Otherwise, you cannot consider science to be a true search for knowledge.

There are those who will reject as science or scientific evidence anything that has not been through formal peer review. Not only that but the formal peer review has to be from acceptable publications or else it still does not count. There are two types of peer review formal and informal. Formal peer review is a gatekeeping mechanism for publication in scientific journals. Informal peer review is reporting the results in a book or other format, that then gets reviewed by others and either accepted or not. There is nothing wrong with either of these approaches but over-reliance on formal peer review as a qualification of science is problematic, particularly when limited to relatively few journals. The point is that the results of scientific research do not magically become science by being published in the right scientific journal. However, this is the position that some people seem to take, and it is particularly common among evolutionists.

At its heart, science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge. As good as it is, science is not perfect. The fact is that science works best when dealing with what is happening in the present and studying currently active phenomena. This makes it an excellent process for learning about how the universe functions, but philosophical presuppositions can get in the way, particularly when the phenomenon being studied cannot be studied directly. This can be the case with the extremely small, the extremely large, the extremely distant, and the past. The simple fact is that the further something is from direct observation, the harder it is to study it scientifically and the more likely that philosophical presuppositions can get in the way of finding the truth.

The Ultimate Answers Pack

Answers for Kids Box Set

The Carlton Mystery: The mystery of the old clock 

Warrior Press

Flood by Design

The Biblical Basis for Modern Science