Atheism and science: 10 unscientific ideas atheists believe

Atheists don’t have blind faith, this is just for silly fundamentalist Christians and creationists. Atheism and science go hand in hand.

Or so they would like you to think.

The truth is atheists claim to believe in science, but they actually believe…

1. Blood vessels can be preserved, unfossilised for >65 million years

There are some incredible scientific discoveries made in recent decades which are, as far as I’m concerned, the death knell of evolutionary biology…

Soft, unfossilised tissue belonging to dinosaurs supposedly extinct for over 65 million years (Schweitzer, 1997)

No kidding.

Creation Ministries International have reported extensively on these findings since their first article in 1997.

After being met with (unsurprising) incredulity, the scientist responsible for this discovery, palaeontologist (and evolutionist) Dr Mary Schweitzer, went to excruciating lengths to validate these findings. She eventually found more examples and got them published in Science.

The extent of the problem this poses for evolutionary biology can not be overstated. This shatters the evolutionary paradigm.

Unfortunately however, evolution is about more than just science.

You see, if evolution is falsified then there is (basically) no alternative, other than creation.

So it has to account for them. There has to be a way for soft tissue to survive unfossilised for millions (upon millions) of years. And so, unsurprisingly, that’s the current speculation.

Of course this is hogwash… it’s blind faith.

It completely defies the laws of chemistry and runs contrary to everything we know about biology and biological structures. Instead of accepting the obvious explanation, otherwise intelligent scientists are forced to resort to pseudoscience and special pleading in the extreme.

Make no mistake, refusing to abandon evolution is now tantamount to belief in miracles, which based on my last blog post, is totally crazy… if you’re an atheist that is.

2. The universe ‘somehow’ spontaneously began from nothing

Technically the Big Bang does not describe how the universe ‘began to exist’. The Big Bang describes how a singularity (a speck of infinite heat and density) rapidly expanded and produced everything in the universe.

So actually the atheist has no explanation for how the universe began (or why for that matter).

Where did the singularity come from?

What caused it?

The honest atheists honest answer is:

we don’t know what caused the universe, and that’s OK’…

As if that somehow makes everything all better.

This proves, by their own admission, that atheists have a belief about the world that has no basis in science.

It also fails to acknowledge that science cannot, by definition, explain the origin of the universe.

Science relies on the laws of physics, chemistry and other natural laws in order to operate. But these laws were only created after the universe began to exist.

Finally this also ignores the fact that there is already a very strong candidate for the universe’s cause. The Kalam cosmological argument is a very famous, very old, and very powerful argument for the existence of God, who caused the universe to exist.

It’s simply not enough to say that ‘we don’t know how the universe began to exist’, because that’s not true. The atheist claims not to know, because the atheist rejects the best current explanation.

3. That supremely intelligent aliens probably live in multiple locations throughout the universe

Oh brother…

So, evolutionists believe in evolution (despite my first point).

So, given life definitely started on earth ~3.5 billion years ago, it stands to reason that it started somewhere else in the universe, maybe even earlier.

And given how old the universe is and how many stars and other galaxies we see, and how many others that are yet to be discovered, then it probably started in numerous other places, possibly millions or billions of other places.

And given how rapidly humans, and human technology, have developed over the last few thousand years (especially the last two centuries), then any aliens who have, even a 1 million year head start on us, should have developed mind bogglingly sophisticated technology by now.

So atheists believe in aliens…

And that’s it!

There is literally no evidence for intelligent life beyond earth. It’s merely an extension of a belief in evolution and deep time.

This is not science. It is not even philosophy. It is childish science-ish fiction.

Sorry that was pretty harsh (but true).

In fairness… if evolution were true, and life did spontaneously arise on earth, then it is not unreasonable to believe it started somewhere else too.

Except that despite over a century of research, scanning the cosmos, and billions of dollars of tax payer money spent, there is not even a speck of evidence that there is life anywhere out in the vast cosmos, other than planet earth.

4. That there are an infinite number of alternative possible universes

There are many examples in the universe and on earth, of certain states of the universe, which exist within an exceedingly small range of values that make life on earth possible. This is known as the fine tuning of the universe.

It’s not just that any one of these values are in themselves exceedingly unlikely, but that they all exist, and are all necessary.

Scientists and philosophers have many possible explanations for why this is the case (except the obvious conclusion, which is that it was created by God).

One of them is the existence of an infinite number of other universes beyond ours.

If there are infinitely many universes out there, then surely at least one of them (ours) would have the properties we observe necessary for life. As a matter of fact, if there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of universes exactly like ours (and an infinite amount that are not).

The problem?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support multiverse theory. In fact, finding evidence for any universe outside of our own, is impossible, and beyond the scope of science (Ellis, 2011).

But without an infinite number of possible universes it’s virtually mathematically impossible for our universe to have been so perfectly suited for life on earth by chance. Multiverse theory is also a mathematical byproduct of the Big Bang, so if the Big Bang is true, it’s apparently unavoidable (Ellis, 2011)!

Slightly besides the point deviation:

Now, it might seem like a convenient god-of-the-gaps argument to just use God as the trump card, but that’s not really what’s going on.

The fine tuning is itself indirect evidence that the universe is designed. It is not an argument from ignorance to say that a universe that looks designed, is designed.

Moreover, we also have to take into account that it is not the only evidence that God exists. The Bible is a testament to the existence of the Judea-Christian God and has compelling evidence of its authenticity and accuracy.

Worst of all, multiverse theory is self refuting, and leads to the most preposterous conclusions. Multiverse theory is not science. It is an attempt to marry atheism with an extremely fine tuned universe.

5. That chance and energy are all that is required to organize simple molecules into structured, self replicating cellular machinery that can give rise to first life in an utterly hostile chemical environment

The second law of thermodynamics is a hot topic in the origins debate.

Those who use it incorrectly try to argue that life cannot evolve because of the second law of thermodynamics. Atheists triumphantly assert the incorrectness of this interpretation and state that actually this only applies in a ‘closed system’. Ignoring the fact that earth is a closed system.

What they’re really trying to say is that, because earth receives energy in the form of heat and radiation from the sun, then it has the energy necessary to partially counteract the second law. That is to say, we can increase the complexity (decrease the entropy) of the universe in one particular location, whilst increasing the overall entropy of the universe as a whole, and thus life is possible.

But this is ridiculous wishful thinking and speculation. Whilst energy is required to create and produce complexity, it is in no way enough by itself. This is literally the same as saying that throwing a handful of scrabble tiles onto the floor might spontaneously arrange themselves into Shakespeare.

OK it’s probably a little more technical than that. Chemical evolutionists would probably argue that it was a building block process, a stepwise sequence of molecules gathering and eventually forming some self replicating organism. There’s no end to the reasons why this is utterly laughable, but here’s some obvious ones:

  • most of the crucial chemicals and macro molecules required for life do not fare well in isolation (especially surrounded by water)
  • There’s absolutely no evidential basis to support any stepwise process of chemical evolution from non-life to life
  • There’s absolutely tons of evidence that makes it seem virtually impossible
  • Basically anyone who is anyone in the field openly acknowledges that no one has any idea, really, how life may have arisen.

6.That aliens may have started life on earth

Here we go again.

We’ve already discussed that, if we assume the Big Bang and evolution are true (despite their problems), then it follows that aliens almost certainly exist elsewhere in the universe.

So, faced with the staggering improbability (impossibility) of life arising through natural mechanisms on earth, some secular scientists and atheists have postulated that maybe life was intelligently designed after all… by aliens.

You probably even saw this coming. Check this out. And this. And this quote from NASA:

“A team of prominent scientists at MIT and Harvard are sufficiently convinced in the plausibility of panspermia that they have spent a decade, and a fair amount of NASA and other funding, to design and produce an instrument that can be sent to Mars and potentially detect DNA or more primitive RNA” – Astrobiology at NASA

NASA, that’s from NASA!

Did you hear that?

scientists at MIT and Harvard…

a fair amount of NASA and other funding…

People are spending money on this idea!

Did I mention that there’s no evidence for any of this?

I’m probably starting to sound like a broken record.

Look don’t get me wrong. Epic space stories are cool, and I am a huge sci-fi nerd (ask my wife). It’s only gotten worse since I became a dry lab rebel. But we’re talking about real life here.

Belief in the actual existence of highly advanced civilisations in outer space is not science. These are the beliefs of people who grew up watching Star Trek and reading H.G. Wells novels, who refuse to accept the existence of God because, y’know, that requires ‘blind faith’…

I think I’ve said enough. I honestly just shake my head at this.

7. Vigorously accept and defend the piecemeal and problematic evidence for the Big Bang theory, but utterly reject the crushingly strong evidence for Christs resurrection

In this post I made an off-hand comment about how so many people accept the Big Bang theory even though it is actually fraught with numerous problems. Now that’s not so bad really. I mean, if you’re not a Christian then you don’t really have many alternatives.

The problem however is that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, by comparison, is astounding (see also here and here). The atheist, by definition, utterly rejects the resurrection of Jesus Christ (meanwhile arguing that there is ‘not a shred of evidence to support a belief in God’)

Atheists claim to be rational, sensible, scientifically minded people who trust in the evidence.

But if we’re talking about raw, hard facts, and nothing else, then the Big Bang isn’t even in the same league as the resurrection. It’s not even a contest.

Consider this article from the conversation (a journalistic styled, digital media outlet that claims to have ‘academic rigour’) by religious studies lecturer Brent Landau.

Brent disputes some of the evidence offered for the resurrection on the basis that it ‘in no way proves’ that the resurrection occurred. He offers a couple of contemptibly weak, dismissive and offhanded alternative explanations and declares that there is ‘no compelling evidence’.

The problem is that, I presume, Brent believes that the Big Bang is a real historical event that caused the rapid expansion of the universe.

Does Brent want to explain how the evidence for the Big Bang is so much more ‘compelling’ than that for the resurrection?

The Big Bang theory was almost totally formulated on one simple cosmological observation, which is that the universe appeared to be expanding, and it was postulated as the most logical explanation… if the whole universe is expanding out, then at some point in the past, the whole universe must have been all squashed down in one place.

But in terms of actual, good, observed evidence that the Big Bang actually occurred, the theory is left seriously wanting. Sure there is the cosmic microwave background radiation, but this is honestly not much, and is fraught problems.

The minimal facts of the resurrection however (which are by no means the only facts), provide a far superior case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only real objection to Christ’s resurrection is an a-priori rejection of miracles and the supernatural.

8. That the success of all of life is the result of a competitive struggle of nature, but for some reason we are obligated to be good and moral anyway, even to our own detriment

Fundamental to the theory of evolution is the struggle for life.

All around us we see that this is true. Life is hard. Humans, animals, everyone. Virtually all of life lives tooth and nail, and most organisms survive by being completely in it for themselves. Those organisms slightly better able to survive will outcompete their relatives and pass on their genes to their offspring.

Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw – Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Humans are not just intelligent, they’re self-aware and reflective and moral. Evolution has nothing but completely ad-hoc explanations for this, with no experimental support. In particular, the existence of morality is particularly problematic.

While there is no shortage of speculation about how morality and altruism could have evolved, there’s simply no evidence for it.

It’s not just that humans understand that there is such a thing as good and evil, we further insist that there is something intrinsically valuable about morality. It’s good to be good.

But as I have mentioned before, evolution cannot explain this.

Science, cannot explain this. Science cannot tell us why we should be good to each other. The best science can do (if evolution is true) is tell us how we evolved to think this way. Science is a process of discovery, it does not have a say in how we ought to behave. Science can only help us understand what we do, and why (on a psychological level) we do some things, cannot teach us what is morally good or bad.

Atheists will insist that we are nothing but a highly intelligent form of life that has not just evolved and been successful, but the fact we are the pinnacle of the evolution of life. In the violent, bloody epic tale of the survival of the fittest, humans are in the lead. But most atheists will also insist that we be good people, care about the environment and other lifeforms (y’know, the ones we’ve been competing with for 200 thousand years to get to the top of the food chain).

Atheists will insist that good exists, in a world where everything is natural, and everything that has ever happened has happened, just because. It’s not just that good exists, but many humans actually put themselves at great risk for others. Sacrificing ourselves for the sake of another is considered one of the most praiseworthy virtues that a human can achieve.

But how can that be possible if the goal of life (according to evolution) is to do the opposite?

We cannot deny that human beings have a conscience, and believe that good and evil exist, even though it seems to run completely contrary to what you would expect if evolution were true.

More importantly, evolution would not have predicted morality, and cannot explain why we should try to be moral beings, but most atheists are still moral people, even though science cannot tell them that they should be.

9. That we are literally, almost certainly, living in a computer simulation

So have you noticed how most of my points build onto each other.

If the Big Bang is true, then it’s almost certain that aliens exist somewhere else in the universe.

If aliens exist, that have been around a few million years longer than us, then they may have been what started life on earth!

If the Big Bang is true, then it’s almost certain that there are an infinite number of other universes besides ours.

What that means is, it’s basically certain that there are universes that were created by aliens, from other universes. Not just actual universes, but some of them are just computer simulations of universes, an infinite number in fact.

If there are an infinite number of universes where aliens have created a computer simulation of a universe, then it’s mathematically almost certain that one of those computer simulations… is our universe.

We haven’t even gone full spastic.

It gets so much worse than this (go and read about the Boltzmann brain).

But the thing I really want to hammer home here is that there is absolutely no evidence at all for any of these ideas.

This is not science. It cannot even be science!

We’re talking about our universe being created as a computer simulation by an alien from another universe. If we’re just living inside the computer program of some advanced alien, then we don’t even have any reason to trust the laws of science that we use to do science!

Some people have argued that maybe the reason our universe seem so finely tuned, is because it’s a computer program.

But this assumes that the alien programmer wouldn’t create a world that merely had the appearance of fine tuning.

This is uber-nerd childhood fantasy and speculation. We’ve reached the deepest depth’s of absurdity.

It is the desperate attempts by otherwise sensible intelligent scientists to appeal to absolutely anything other than acknowledging the simplest, most obvious and complete answer to all of the points on this list.

We were created by an all-powerful infinite creator who both loves us eternally, and wants us to know him. The God of Bible is not some random alien that has created us as a computer simulation. God is, according to the Bible, all-powerful and completely trustworthy.

If the God of the Bible is real, science is possible because the laws of physics and chemistry are trustworthy, and the more we understand them, the more we understand this wonderful universe that God created, especially for us:

For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited)

Isaiah 45:18 – via Bible Gateway

10. For all their condescending ownership of rationality the atheist has, as it turns out, very little evidence to support even one of the many utterly crucial propositions required for atheism (and evolution) to be true.

Finally, when considering the points above, this all converges on an important truth. Atheists actually have no good explanation for many of the most important things that atheism needs to be able to explain:

  • The Big Bang does not explain how the universe came into existence. The Big Bang is not considered the cause of the universes existence, only the explanation for how the singularity expanded (which had to exist beforehand). Actually, atheists have no explanation whatsoever for what caused the universe to exist… not even a clue.
  • The theory of evolution does not explain how life began – evolutionists are the first to emphatically remind us that how life started is beyond the scope of evolutionary biology. Atheists therefore, have absolutely no idea at all, how life started; no good ideas anyway. They are instead forced to speculate that life was intelligently designed by something, anything other than the God of the Bible
  • Evolutionary biologists have absolutely no scientific basis to explain why we should be moral creatures. There are some theories that attempt to explain how it evolved, but they only exist to attempt to explain altruism because they already know it exists. If morality did not exist in humans, no evolutionist would be asking why it didn’t.
  • Evolution cannot explain what gives our lives purpose, or why we should embrace that purpose.

Worst of all, the atheist has no way to prove to you, that you are not simply a brain floating in vacuum space, and everything you think you know about the world is an illusion. In fact, the atheist who believes in the Big Bang is forced to accept that this is the most likely scenario. The atheist is forced to accept that the most likely scenario is that they themselves are not real, but merely a figment of your (you the person/mind reading this) imagination, and you’re nothing but a brain.



The fact is, atheists, secular scientists, evolutionists, etc. all claim to be scientific. They say they believe in science, and evidence and stuff. But as you can plainly see that’s not true.

It’s not so much science that atheists trust, it’s naturalism.

The pursuit of modern atheism and secular science, is not about how to describe the world and universe through science. It’s about how to describe the world and the universe without any reference to God.

Atheists will happily abandon reason and evidence and chase after the most unbelievable science fiction nonsense, if they have to, in order to avoid exploring the possibility that God actually exists, and the Bible is actually true.

Did you seriously read the whole thing? You're amazing!

If you enjoyed this post then you might like to join my mailing list. If you do you'll get a free copy of my cheat sheet immediately sent to your inbox:

5 Powerful Reasons to Believe in the Christian God 

One post per fortnight, and I'll never SPAM you... ever.

This post is a friendly response to a popular internet meme.

Here is the original placard:


Ellis, G. 2011, “The untestable multiverse”, Nature, vol. 469, no. 7330, pp. 294-295.

Schweitzer, M., & Staedter, T. (1997). The real jurassic park. Earth, 6, 54-57. Accessed online: 29th Sept, 2018.

Templeton, C. (1996) Farewell to God, McClelland & Stewart, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2 thoughts on “Atheism and science: 10 unscientific ideas atheists believe”

  1. Of course this is hogwash… it’s blind faith.

    It completely defies the laws of chemistry and runs contrary to everything we know about biology and biological structures. Instead of accepting the obvious explanation, otherwise intelligent scientists are forced to resort to pseudoscience and special pleading in the extreme.

    Sorry, but read this again and remember the base of your own religion, faith. Anyway, your explanation of the big bang theory was absolute garbage, leading me to believe one of these two things: You don’t understand the concept, or you are trying to make your point sound better somehow. It wasn’t a singularity necessarily, it was a point when the universe got so hot and dense that the laws of physics broke down. We *can’t* know what was before it, so it practically doesn’t matter, it doesn’t affect us. Also a poor explanation of the multiple universes theory. WE DON’T FRICKING BELIEVE IN *INFINITE* UNIVERSES. We believe in every possibility being played out, and that isn’t infinite, since there is a limited number of arrangements for the particles in our universe. Emotions could easily be caused by the fact we are pack animals it *did* ensure survival, we were to weak to live on our own, and emotions kept us together. We aren’t the only ones self-aware. You might not approve this to be on your website, but at least read it and consider the damage you do to people with your relentless faith in a God that models a mentally abusive relationship.

    • No one is denying the role that faith plays in the Christian religion, even if your understanding of it is terrible. The point of the article, which you spectacularly missed, was that for atheism to maintain a lack of belief in God, it posits some natural explanation, which has no basis in science and requires a degree of faith. Maybe it’s faith that science will ‘eventually’ explain it, or faith that the philosophy regarding it, is sound.

      Christians are derided for having faith in Jesus Christ, whilst atheism parades itself as rational and based on the evidence, even though there is no explanation or speculation (let alone empirical evidence) for what preceded the Big Bang, the origin of human consciousness, or our physical existence, among other things.

      So actually, it does matter, if you’re going to insist that your atheism is rational, and lacks faith (either in some God, or something else).

      BTW, Jesus Christ, and the atonement for our sins, is the basis for Christianity, not ‘faith’. Christian faith is grounded in the objective truth that Christ died, and rose from the dead.

      ‘the laws of physics broke down’ – the statement itself is inherently unscientific, as science utterly requires the laws of physics to operate as they do.

      Multiverse theories postulate, more or less, all possible universes, including an infinite number of cycles of universes with the same laws of physics as ours, and/or a universe that is infinitely sized.

      The crucial point is that postulating *any* number of universes existing beyond our own is fundamentally outside the scope of science and it’s impossible in principle to obtain empirical evidence for any proposed multiple verses.

      ‘Emotions could easily be caused by the fact we are pack animals’ – a nice, and very wild speculation. Because that’s all this is. You want to hope that emotions are explained by some natural phenomena, otherwise evolution is demonstrably false. Maybe a more concrete statement from you would be ’emotions *definitely were* caused by some natural phenomena (because evolution utterly depends on that being true)’.

      Sorry, but you haven’t said anything that repudiates my post, or undermines my basic point, which is that atheism is no more ’empirically valid’ than the Christian faith. You have selectively split the hairs of some of my technical descriptions, none of which improve the empirical validity of any of the theories.

      In any case, the post was just a bit of fun. Christians are the ones who are always being derided for their ‘faith’, so I thought I’d point out that atheism has it’s degree of faith in plenty of places.

      Besides… Aliens. Seriously?

Comments are closed.