The natural world is imbued with a high degree of Order and Organization.
Charts for celestial navigation confidently predicts placement of stars and planets far in advance. Tide charts show future statistics with precision and confidence. Eclipse forecasts are reliable and confident. Today’s date is established in agreement around the globe. Why? Other agreements or treaties come and go, lasting for decades and in some cases for centuries. It is unprecedented that a date two millennia ago would endure so long. What does this agreement by almost all people groups on the planet signify? Anything? Nothing? Some would say “nothing of any consequence. What if it is of consequence? What if we don’t like the implications? Doesn’t what we decide to believe become our reality? Should we care?
Much is at Stake.
Why don’t people believe in God? They argue in vague generalizations and sweeping assertions: the fossil records, the billions of years, mistakes in the Bible, hypocrisy in the church, thousands of books proving evolution and rendering it to the exalted position of settled science, and on and on. Many don’t believe because the idea of God is bad news to them. It almost seems they assume everything they hear is truth. Some of them turn out to be our educators and scientists. And, even though their unbelief is rooted in the area of the WILL, and not the INTELLECT, it doesn’t stop them from insisting that their disbelief is rooted in science, and that indeed God is a pre-scientific concept! And this is sufficient for them. They have chosen to believe that faith in God is a pre-scientific concept and that all religions have their origins in antiquity, that Science is factual and religion relies on faith. Your question and response should be: can truth only be derived from scientific investigation? Is science the only source for truth? Unbelievers selectively use facts to counter the existence of God. Are the accepted scientific standards of proving fact or theory used to prove evolution or are these selective pieces of inductive information used to validate a belief ? Let us examine just one?
How Do Many Scientists Conclude the Theory of Evolution is Settled Science Today?
There is only one way. The proponents of evolution must assume the validity of the very thing they are trying to prove! This is a fatal flaw in investigative science. Assumption that evolution exists before collecting facts, as well as developing the conclusive argument that God does not exist without proof i.e. "of course there is no God", is Santa Clause Science. Real science has not revealed there is no God since no evidence is offered with conclusive proof. The Criteria, standards, and protocols to justify assigning scientific fact that real scientists use to prove various aspects and outcomes in nature have been avoided by evolutionary scientists initial assumption: There is no God. Real accepted outcomes in science are made from well established Protocols, Standards, and Criteria supporting their conclusions. It is only when we provide evidence that we have a basis for whether it is scientific fact or theory, not because you believe it is a fact. Evolutionary scientists have not produced conclusive facts proving evolution is science. We can only conclude it is no more then their personal preference i.e. they believe evolution is scientific fact requiring them to exercise the one thing they oppose: faith.