UPDATE: Welcome readers from 4Simpsons! Thanks for the link Neil!
In cosmology, we had to wait decades for the theism-friendly big bang theory to beat out atheism-friendly theories like the eternal universe model, the steady-state model, the oscillating model, etc. Piles of taxpayer money wasted trying to prove atheistic flights of fancy. But in the end, the evidence for the big bang was too much for the atheistic theories, and we beat them out.
Junk DNA
And here is another example of how atheism is bad for scientific inquiry: “Junk DNA”.
The purpose of the genome is to contain the instructions that allow the cell to build functional sequences of smaller components. If the sequences are done right, you get a folded-up protein that can be used for all kinds of things.
But what those parts of the genome that don’t code for proteins? Well, atheists have been calling them “Junk DNA” and hailing it as proof that there is no designer to life. I can remember Christian groups like Reasons to Believe predicting that a purpose for “Junk DNA” would be found. But atheists pooh-pooh’d that idea. Gee, I wonder who was right? The same people who are always right: THEISTS.
Denyse O’Leary cites this Princeton University press release on Post-Darwinist:
Now researchers from Princeton University and Indiana University who have been studying the genome of a pond organism have found that junk DNA may not be so junky after all. They have discovered that DNA sequences from regions of what had been viewed as the “dispensable genome” are actually performing functions that are central for the organism. They have concluded that the genes spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.
…The term “junk DNA” was originally coined to refer to a region of DNA that contained no genetic information. Scientists are beginning to find, however, that much of this so-called junk plays important roles in the regulation of gene activity. No one yet knows how extensive that role may be.
She’s got a stack of other related links at the bottom of the post.
Commenter ECM also sent me this story from Cornelius Hunter’s new blog.
Excerpt:
One problem with evolution is its strong bias toward viewing everything in biology as a kludge. When a newly discovered structure is examined, evolutionists take one look and conclude it is leftover junk. After all, blind, unguided mutations and other processes just happened to produce everything we see. The evolutionist’s going in position is that biology is a fluke. We’re lucky anything works.
Hunter then cites this passage from some naturalist researchers who study “junk DNA”:
Here we have a molecule that serves an important role in how cells function and survive, but it contains these puzzling ‘junk’ sequences that don’t seem to have any apparent purpose. Our work suggests that this disorder is really a way of creating flexibility, allowing the protein to function as a molecular switch, a process that is thought to go wrong in certain diseases.
Evolution has provided researchers with convenient modular structures, areas that are repeated over and over again to make up proteins, and so we tend to dismiss the interspersed disordered sequences that don’t seem to have any definable structure. Here we show that the weak molecular interactions in a disorganized protein sequence are essential in giving this protein its unique attributes.
Know what? If you substitute “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in there for “Evolution”, it makes just as much sense! Try it! Evolution causes toothpaste to come out of the toothpaste tube when you squeeze it, and Shakespearean rhyming couplets to rhyme, and my Java code to compile. It’s all evolution!
Conclusion
Atheists, always remember this quote from agnostic NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow, regarding the progress of science:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
In the 1920s, there was no theory about a universe that begins to exist out of nothing, no fine-tuning, no DNA, no Cambrian explosion, nothing. Then science progressed, reducing atheism to a kind of childish delusion, still believed by ignorant snake-handlers and people with certain persistent moral, … ah… issues. But that’s what psychiatrists are for!
Science is always for us, it’s never for you. You have faith. Blind faith. We have all the evidence. We invented science, and every new discovery makes your materialism look more silly and naive… you bravely hold out hope for some hopeful Flying Spaghetti Monster to swoop in and rescue your atheism from the big, bad mind-independent reality. When will you grow up?
There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster!
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Here are some quotes from Fred Hoyle, ex-Atheist (he became ‘ex’ based on the evidence, not a religious conversion of any sort) and Deist (due to said evidence):
Quote 1:
Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Quote 2:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of…
Quote 3:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
He was also the fellow that coined the ever-popular concept of evolution as being as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and building a fully-functional 747.
LikeLike
My personal view of atheists like Hoyle and Flew who convert to deism on the merits is that they are the greatest people in the entire universe. They falsify every mean thing I’ve ever said about atheism, which goes to show you that I am only generalizing when I bash atheism. Probably, lots of atheists are like Hoyle and Flew, they just never get any decent answers from Christians.
LikeLike
Sweet, I’m one of the greatest people in the universe!! ;)
As for why they move towards deism, it’s pretty simple: the preponderence of the evidence is very much against a random, purely naturalistic, universe and anyone that approaches the topic with an open mind (these people are very rare, mind you) can’t help but be pulled, purely by the weight of the **empirical** (very, very important that word) evidence towards at least agnostic deism.
I think a large part of the problems in the world is that most people are not empiricist: they don’t care one whit for what we actually, objectively, know, preferring the ‘easy’ answer that it’s all one big accident. (A lot less thinking and agonizing and introspection (not neccesarily in equal parts), etc., is required by simply accepting that things just are.)
And not to ruffle your feathers WK, but I don’t think speaking to 99% of Christians would have much force in converting die-hard atheists to at least deism because, as with the atheists, they accept things as just-so, with as little actual though as possible–they just happen to be right, but not neccesarily for the reasons they probably think. (Far and away most theists are not, in any way, like you or, say, Paul Craig Roberts.)
LikeLike
ECM, you are without a doubt one of the greatest people in the universe. I try to give you space about not being a Christian, but this is an area of concern for me. All people who conform their beliefs to the external universe MUST get the goodies in the end. Sorry if this offensive, and don’t worry, I won’t bother you.
The purpose of my atheist survey questions was to reveal many things about how atheists think. Especially the desire for happiness, and the refusal to comply with the Christian life even if it became clear that Christianity were true. Empirical evidence is irrelevant. And even the attempt to try to find out the truth is viewed as a distraction from the need to be happy ALL THE TIME.
Apparently, 90 minutes of time to watch a debate that might lead you to a loving relationship with the living God is a worse punishment than having your arms and legs cut off. (And Church “Christians” are absolutely NO DIFFERENT – in fact atheists are more open to empirical evidence than today’s feminized Christians)
You cannot possibly go wrong by mocking the majority of Christians in the West, especially rank-and-file members of the feminized church. If they haven’t read any Lee Strobel, then have at them! My next series is going to be interviews with Christians about these topics, and I’m going to expose them for their laziness, ignorance and cowardice.
By the way, for me, I am not so interested in many aspects of the Christian life, so much as I am a fighter in need of winning. I believe in and embrace whatever results in victory. My friends Andrew, Richard and Jojo will tell you. I don’t pray that everyone will come out of our racquetball games uninjured. I pray that I will utterly crush them in the racquetball court. I pray for victory, not that a good time will be had by all.
And so I am a Christian. I have a powerful sense of obligation in my relationship with God… not to keep silent while anyone speculates about his non-existence or insults his character.
LikeLike
Of course it doesn’t offend me and I really don’t take exception to anything you’ve said.
But this is comedy gold:
Apparently, 90 minutes of time to watch a debate that might lead you to a loving relationship with the living God is a worse punishment than having your arms and legs cut off.
It’s funny because it’s true :D
The thing is, the power of cognitive dissonance is so great (and most religious atheists suffer from it so grievously) that it very well could be just as painful as having your limbs shorn off w/ rusty spoons.
LikeLike
False philosophies and beliefs have a nasty way of moving people to make up some pretty crazy ideas. Think of Vulcan, the hypothetical planet located between Mercury and the Sun used to explain Mercury’s anomalous orbit.
In modern science, I suspect that people will look back on a lot of aspects of biological evolution and astrophysics and laugh their heads off.
LikeLike