Atheist-Creationist Denial Syndrome

Kevin Cobb posted a great comment on the blog:

“Saying that the existence of information is proof of the existence of God is like saying that the fact that we see 7 colors is proof that 7 is a spiritually significant number.

In this latter case, the solution, the truth is that we see an uncountable variety of 450px-Colouring_pencilscolors, and we can only see them because our eyes evolved to see them. There is evidence that some creatures actually perceive more colors than we can, in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrum.

Also mind you that the color and sound spectra are probably infinite continuum, and we can only see a tiny sliver.

The relevance of this metaphor is to say that what you see as information and mind is only a human concept and understanding of what is happening, which is to say, a limited one.

What God is, or how it operates is surely far beyond and much more subtle than can be grasped at with “information”. I think it is belittling to God to suggest that it uses a “mind” as you understand it.

Furthermore, when scientists and atheists suggest that life could arise without God, they are simply saying that they believe that whatever causes all of this strange beauty and horror did not, and could not reasonably have had Humans and Earth at the center of his creation of the universe.

They also deny that God is as petty and Human-like as he is often claimed to be, which he would have to be if he really represented your idea of a mind. The thing that causes the universe, whether you call it nature, the Tao, Brahman, or God is not being denied.

Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be. Saying “God doesn’t exist” is more a claim against your understanding.

How can you claim with your finite mind to know something that is infinite, and in so doing deny the reality in front of you?

Is DNA really “information”, or simply what it is?”

I replied:

A young earth creationist says “The universe only APPEARS to be 13 billion years old.” (Even though we have entire libraries of evidence that this is indeed the case.) The creationist says, “Those dinosaur bones only APPEAR to be 65 million years old.”

An atheist says “DNA only APPEARS to be information.” (Even though we have entire professions like bioinformatics that give us incredibly useful tools for genetics and medicine.)

What’s the difference?

Anybody notice the pattern of both extremists putting ideology above science? Above what you can personally see, feel, hear, touch, taste, analyze and understand?

“The universe only APPEARS to be fine tuned… Genomes only APPEAR to contain information… DNA only APPEARS to be code… The cosmos only APPEARS to be engineered to produce life… Living things only APPEAR to be purposeful. Dawkins says, “Biology is the study of things that APPEAR to be designed” …Humans only APPEAR to have a spiritual nature… On and on it goes.

Isn’t it downright FUNNY how atheist fundamentalists deny reality at every turn? How they turn science into the study of an illusion?

This is Exhibit “A” of psychological denial. It’s like a woman with anorexia looking at herself in a mirror and insisting that “I’m fat.”

Nobody will ever be able to say with a straight face “Wait a minute God, there wasn’t enough evidence!”

WAKE UP. The evidence is all around you. It’s embedded in the very language you use to describe things.

And it’s evidence enough.

Kevin, when you say “Clearly something very weird, deceptively simple and unfathomable is the cause for anything to be” … I don’t know very many theologians who would disagree with you. You are closer to God than you think.

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here –

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here –

10 Responses

  1. Thanks to alerting others to this comment and to your response via your FB page.

    It may help to place it into the discussion of Masatoshi Nei’s 2013 textbook conclusion: “In other words, genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements (p. 199).

    Carl Zimmer addressed the explanatory power of Nei’s claim when he wrote: “Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.”

    Thank God for “Evolution 2.0” Theorists simply accept “Mutation-Driven Evolution.” Serious scientists do not. Serious scientists are required to provide experimental evidence that links physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms to biologically-based cause and effect.

    • Bravo.

      • Another recent report from biophysicists links what Perry Marshall has detailed about physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics for a general audience. Everything known is place into the context of an atoms to ecosystems model.

        How Strange Twists in DNA Orchestrate Life

        Excerpt: “DNA is way more active in its own regulation than we thought,” said Lynn Zechiedrich, a biophysicist at Baylor College of Medicine and one of the researchers leading the study of so-called supercoiled DNA.

        The strange twists link what we eat to metabolic networks and genetic networks. The networks are linked to pathology by mutations. They are linked to healthy longevity by nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements in all living genera.

  2. You reveal a fascinating analogy in something like spiritual anorexia: avoiding all things spiritual to avoid the dangers of its abuse/excess.

    • YES.

      And let’s just acknowledge that almost all anti-religious people have been wounded by religion. So… let’s deal with the wound itself – the event – the deed that was done – rather than trying to dump the whole thing in the trash.

  3. feather duster says:

    Perry, how are you today?

    As to my personal ‘beliefs’ I have none. I repeat that, NONE.
    As to creationists and atheists neither one of them are correct.
    Earthling ‘human beings’ as we know them today are a cross between some earthling ‘reptilian’ something, an earthling ‘neanderthal’ something, AND 223 chromosomes in our DNA makeup which are ‘OFF World’ and NOT from here (meaning, not from ‘this’ planet)….Anyone can SEE this for themselves under any microscope in a lab.
    I was one of the few who saw this in 1984.
    I have had to watch this belief debate from BOTH sides argue it out all these years, it is ridiculous, redundant, and wrong.
    It is NOT a ‘one side or the other’ debate, not a ‘belief’ debate, not a ‘there is a God/there is no God’ debate……there are THREE factors involved here…and those are the FACTS, Perry.
    Take it from someone who KNOWS we are closer to dolphins than we ever were to apes.

  4. Peter McMillan says:

    I am a Christian.

    I have a wild theory that I am only able to present to you via email.

    It doesn’t affect doctrine but it does fly in the face of standard ways of thinking and completely upsets your own views.

    In a nutshell, Adam and Eve did both ‘physically’ die the day they partook of the fruit, and I believe I can show it (though not prove it).

    Seeing as you are an electronics engineer, you might also be interested in my belief that the electron itself is a scam of the highest order. Before you laugh at that, consider that I have a degree in electronics engineering.

    If you are interested in what I have to say, contact me through the email address supplied privately to you along with this comment submission.

  5. Ryan Nagy says:

    “The universe only APPEARS to be fine tuned… Genomes only APPEAR to contain information… DNA only APPEARS to be code… The cosmos only APPEARS to be engineered to produce life… Living things only APPEAR to be purposeful. Dawkins says, “Biology is the study of things that APPEAR to be designed” …Humans only APPEAR to have a spiritual nature…”

    Actually, what those people are saying (whether they know or not) is that those words and ideas are a function of human thought and the human mind. Those are words and concepts we use – as best we can – to describe the world. The fact that you (Perry) want there to be a God that orders and creates and that makes things “real” is also a function of your thinking and worldview and what you want. It is not about the world itself. We make maps of reality. Scientists make maps. You make maps of reality (speaking metaphorically). But scientific maps can be disproven. And scientific maps lead us to a greater understanding of the world.

    I leave you with one simple quote:

    “objectivity is a subject’s delusion that observing can be done without him” – Heinz Von Foerster.

    Put yourself, Perry Marshall, into the system that you are trying to explain. You are a part of what you are trying to explain. You are thinking about the system that you are a part of. You are not independent of it.


Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *