The subject of atheism inevitably leads to the study of evolution and to other branches of science. The Roman Catholic Church has taken the position that evolution is entirely compatible with their particular view of creation. Although I am not a Catholic, for the sake of argument here I will not dispute their assertion to any great degree. This is not therefore just another book on the subject of evolution versus creation. These arguments although interesting and informative do not, in my opinion, reach to the root of the error which is atheism. The root error is exposed by a rather simple process that is entirely based upon scientific theorem. The facts presented here are in accordance with known laws, they can be subjected to experimentation, and they are open to falsification. In other words, the main assertions made here can be either confirmed or disproved by scientific means without appeal to a supernatural source.
The word evolution has quite a few definitions depending on whom you are talking to. The theory proposed by Charles Darwin suggested that all animals including humans and plant life descended from a few basic forms. Nowadays this has come to mean that even these basic progenitors descended from some type of single celled creature or bacteria of some sort, which in turn evolved from self organizing lifeless chemicals. I combine here the two views of Darwinian evolution without making much distinction. Other definitions of evolution simply refer to the natural selection of certain "genetic improvements" over others. Selecting certain genetic traits in favor of others has already been proven to effectively manipulate a gene pool; such is the case with animal breeders. The so called natural selection is in some cases disputed but that is not to say that the process of natural selection does not occur. I have no argument, for example, with the fact that certain animals living among themselves have a tendency to change over time without any unnatural intervention. Therefore when I use the term evolution in this book I am referring to the overall theory that all animals, humans and plants have descended from a common ancestor with even that supposed ancestor arising naturally. I think that it is clear in the text when reference is made to "abiogenesis," which is the portion of the popular theory which supposes that life evolved from non-life.
The word atheist for some reason has also taken on various meanings. The word is widely used to refer to people who do not believe in God. Many atheists have been offended by the word "believe" and prefer to define themselves as "without God." I reject this definition for reasons that will become clear later as we see that there is not a factual or scientific foundation for atheism. Atheism is a belief system just like all religions. When the evidence is weighed objectively one either believes there is a God or he believes there is not a God. We will show here that the far more logical conclusion is belief in a supreme being regardless of how he is conceived. In fact the evidence demonstrates that it is rather absurd to not believe in a supreme being of one sort or another. Agnosticism is a far more tenable position than atheism because the agnostic really isn’t sure. Another definition of agnosticism is that God cannot be proved to either exist or not. The evidence that we explore here however shows that God must exist. I define atheism along with most of the rest of the world as the belief system that rejects the proposition that a creator is necessary for our existence. The "blind" atheist is one who has lost the ability to reason because he is blinded by his fanatical belief to the point of even being blinded to the fact of his belief. For the rest of the run of the mill atheists and agnostics I have written this book. I really have no intention here of reasoning with fanatics because they are by definition beyond the reach of logic.
In all but a few places we discuss the evidence on scientific grounds. There is no attempt to present one idea of God above another in the main portion of the book so I suppose that the reader is free to choose any god he or she chooses from the myriads of gods available. However, I feel that I would leave some wandering in the wilderness of spiritual confusion if I were to leave the reader with what some knew before they even opened this book. Additionally, I feel an obligation to a certain atheist man I once debated to produce a logical and ordered approach as to why I strive to be a follower of Jesus Christ. For that reason I included some of that discussion here. As I included some of my own opinions, beliefs and speculation I have still attempted to stay on the track of logic and reason. The problem in discussing a supernatural being is of course keeping the discussion on a purely scientific level. This creates a division that is unavoidable so I have done the best I could.
Creation science is a bit of a misnomer because it seems to me that the intervention of a supernatural being into so called natural processes kind of spoils the pudding. The creationist can say whenever he chooses "well God intervened here." Therefore I have avoided the issues that can be escaped thus and we assume a purely natural process generally. It is from that basis that we answer the questions often raised by persons who tend to believe that "nature" or "natural selection" or the blind laws of physics can do anything including create a universe and the life within it. I have tried to keep the book targeted at the point that is implied in the title. I attempt here to bring all of the subjects that are discussed to the one common conclusion that there must be a single God.
Now having said that the book is based largely on fact and science I should say that I have written this book in a manner that can be understood by everyday people from all walks of life. I have also taken the liberty of interjecting some light-hearted passages into the more serious discussions. The first chapter for example is obvious hyperbole. There are plenty of dry and technical books on the subjects explored here but this is not another one. Any questions that may not be fully answered here can be resolved by a simple search on the Internet. Therefore I’ve attempted not to bore the reader, I hope, with endless and intricate discussions which tend to divert us from the topic at hand.
I undertook this work because of the widespread and undeserved respectability that atheism has attained behind the veil of science. In the U.S. at least, even though most of the population believes in God, this influence has spread to most areas of the culture. The myth that is the basis for atheism is now widely believed. The atheists we are told are the "experts" that have hidden knowledge that is entirely based upon diligent scientific research and logic. I read a book once called The Blind Watchmaker written by a man named Richard Dawkins. This popular atheist was trying to prove that the information based machinery of life needs no designer - that somehow a biological machine was an exception to known laws, logic and common experience. Some of his main points are refuted here but the real reason for this book is because of a certain woman whom I never met who renounced her faith in God after hearing the flawed reasoning of a popular atheist. I have no problem with the blind leading the blind but I strongly object when the arrogant seek to destroy the hope of the innocent. I never have liked wolves.