Atheists have faith, too

It is unfortunate that laymen and pseudoscientists put so much stock in science to solve all of our problems. I have taught nuclear physics for more than 25 years, and while I agree that science is fascinating and has given us much in the way of benefits, it is, however, no panacea. It cannot ever change mankind’s nature, and that is the ultimate problem with this world’s problems.

Apparently letter writer Jeff Miller (“Example shows prayer fails,” Dec. 4) either is an atheist or one who puts a lot of trust in science. Where does Mr. Miller think physical laws that govern our universe come from? They just happened? They are completely random? If so, one has to ask: Why do these laws follow mathematics? Mathematics is very structured, and so is our universe. Why should this be? Obviously someone had to create these physical laws that are so well-tuned.

Many atheists and science-worshippers hang their hats on evolution, and I bet Mr. Miller is no exception to this stereotype. They feel that the wide acceptance of evolution by the academic community backs up their position. Actually, the theory of evolution has a very weak scientific foundation but a very high philosophical position.

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution in that there should be millions of intermediate transition fossils. These are not found in the fossil record. After all of the digging and research around the world, one would have to wonder about the lack of these transitional fossils.

Still more compelling than the fossil record evidence is that vertical evolution (simpler to more complex) is impossible in realistic reasoning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would have to be violated millions of times for even the development of an organ such as the eye. By the way, will an eye be useful if it is missing a retina, lens, optic nerve or any other part? Of course not. How could an originally blind organism (that did not even know that it was blind) develop by mutation a small portion of an eye, and somehow the organism would continue to randomly develop each portion of the eye until magically it had the complete eye and could now see? Answer: It couldn’t even in a trillion years.

It takes much faith in the impossible to be an atheist.

Tim Austin


Example shows prayer fails


Tue, 01/17/2017 - 23:32

Liberals are making no sense

Tue, 01/17/2017 - 23:31

The tantrum over Trump

Tue, 01/17/2017 - 23:31

Rick McKee editorial cartoon