New Atheism

Like old atheism but with a marketing campaign against religion.

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and anti-theism. It displays a distinct hatred toward the education of theology, beliefs and the supernatural. In a nutshell it is in conflict with itself over the genetic fallacy syndrome. This is found to be proven because it can only defend itself through unsubstantiated attack on theism, embarrassingly confusing agency with mechanism at the core of its zeal, while also hanging at the coat strings of evolutionary theory.

Atheist’s frequently confuse mechanism with agency. In simple terms this means that they accept the reality of the complex mechanism i.e. a thing that we can see touch and feel, but they don’t accept that it has been designed. Atheists avoid the empiricism of the ‘elegant appearance’ of design, screaming us in the face, and the view of most of the greatest scientists in history. The reason they don’t accept this is because they think that if they can understand how the thing works it means that we don’t need to think it was designed, we don’t need a God. That isn’t even an argument, it is just a naive view of a complex paradigm. To reiterate, it is a confusion between mechanism and agency. It is an opinionated observation that requires a leap of faith in Darwin because empirically things look designed, Dawkins even agrees with this in his numerous debates with Prof. Jon Lennox. Dawkin’s says that even though things look like they have been designed and he also says that he wants to give praise for these things at times, he still chooses to believe that things came about by accident or themselves: paradoxically by a ‘nothing’ complexity that was not originally present in the distant past.

The kind of evolution that Darwin and Dawkins propose cuts straight across the science lab, and most school systems are currently unwilling to face this fact. The proven science is that entropy does not allow more complexity to emerge from less complexity. I.e DNA cannot become more complex over time without an agent. It contravenes the second law of thermodynamics / entropy which is lab provable. Let’s be clear, DNA has a programmed growth capacity within a living system from Zygot to adulthood for example and furthermore it responds to our environment, but at its core DNA and the mechanisms associated with its production are shown to be chemical and physical machines. If one introduces a single intricate error the system fails instantly. We’re not talking about DNA damage here, we’re talking about the microscopic machines that actually make the DNA! At this level it isn’t blind or feeling its way by accident, science has proven that over the last decade. World class geneticist fundamental in gene discovery Francis Collins interestingly is a proponent of intelligent design and realises ‘agent’ in his findings, so too does Stephen Meyer hold the same conclusion: earning his doctorate from Oxford he showed in his research that agency is required to form the microscopic machines in the heart of cells. Furthermore, that any detraction from the critical threshold of ‘mechanism’ causes immediate non-functionality in the cell. In molecular biology we see zero evidence for agency within the actual mechanism, instead it points outward to agency. This complexity exists with such compelling strength: for example bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic flagellas (in essence mechanical motors that exist at the very core of cells) point outward to the numenon, because no evidence can be found that these can work with even the slightest deviation of structure, and thus the ‘structure of design’ points to agent.

We cannot prove that mutation alone causes adaptive evolution or the changing of one genus to another. Also, the truth about palaeontology is this, while we are taught in the Origin of Species that we all emerge from one ancestral genus, in the rock records we find everything appearing at the same time interns of ‘genetic complexity’ not external organism. All the trees of life in one form or another suddenly appear in the Palaeozoic section. On occasion we even find tree fossils passing through numerous strata, a human footprint in a dinosaur print, a human skull deep in the wrong strata, recent marrow flesh inside Trex bones contradicting our dispensational assumptions. Broadly we find incredible complexity appearing instantly, albeit exoskeletal findings in the Cambrian strata (which is actually evidence for a ‘diluvian theory of hydraulics’ in physics: heavier items being laid down deeper in the sediment). There is nothing much to show for in the precambrian period then pop, we have complex creatures all working and genetically functioning straightaway with no in-between examples or graduation. Why is this? Scientifically, is it not a clear a record of the law of hydraulics (ie. dense things sinking deeper in a flood scenario v mammals floating)? The flood extinction event which is revealed in acheology is supported by ancient writings across all people groups across the world. 

When you boil down the atheistic paradigm it is this:

1st event… Big Bang: Nothing = Something

2nd event… Evolution: Complex = Agent URL brand was founded on 3rd July 2006. The site in its current form was created in 2014. Third party logos and URL links are for illustration purposes only. Any other logo or pictures contained on this site are also subject to Copyright law. Photos and images are either designed or privately owned or Copyright paid from Shutterstock.