Atheists (however one defines the term) frequently use the term "no evidence" in relation to the existence of God, any type of creation, (especially Genesis creation and flood), or most any other theistic claim. They almost always however claim that their beliefs are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, etc, etc, etc, repeat, etc, repeat, etc.. (Their beliefs generally tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the world without needing God)
Is there really "no evidence" for God, and creation? Or, perhaps is there in fact some fairly decent evidence (though not necessarily absolute proof), and their calim of "no evidence" is a more of a product of their own ignorance or bias rather than of facts.
The following resources are an attempt to provide readers with some evidence that they may not be aware of, and then perhaps they can consider whether their really is "no evidence" for such things.
Fine-Tuning Design ArgumentThe Fine-Tuning Design Argument:
A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God
The book The Biotic Message should also be referenced on this argument as it points out the naturalists attempts to evade the issue by invoking infinite numbers of unknown universes to overcome probability analysis leads to untestability and hense pseudo-science by there own standards.
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
- Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
- Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
- Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
- Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
- Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
- Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
- Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
- Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
- Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.
Probability of the Origin of Life design argument:
There are numerous resources that can be listed here. For demonstration sake the following is a simplified calculation of specifiying 1/2 of the amino acid sites to obatain a single functional protein. http://www.globalflood.org/papers/insixdays.html.
The above book The Biotic Message also demonstrates the accurate use of such calculations, as well as responds to bogus attempt to escape probability analysis and the origin of life. (see also http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3030)