Atheism in light of Science

I've touched on atheism in my past writings, but today I feel compelled to address it again. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, that we evolved through evolution, beginning with the Big Bang Theory...
Let's look at evolution first, for the very foundation of atheism rests in its belief as true. So how does evolution stack up in the face of science? First, science deals in that which it can measure, observe, and dissect. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, one man's postulation of what might have happened, and subsequently accepted by a large portion of the populace as being "true". It is not grounded in any fact, it is not an observed science, it is merely one man's "best guess" as to what happened many millions of years ago. Science does have laws, however, laws that have been tried and tested and found to be true, like the laws of Thermodynamics. The interesting thing is that, specifically, the second law states that any environment, when left to random mutation, goes from a state of order to a state of disorder. Science actually states that we should "de-evolve" if the theory of evolution were true. Yet we are not de-evolving, nor do we see species "evolving" today (ie. half man / half ape).
As for Creationism, or the belief that our universe was created by a higher, intelligent order, or God, atheists claim we are fools to believe such with blind faith. Yet the very word "universe"- "uni" meaning "one" and "verse" meaning "spoken" is declared in the very beginning of Scripture. "God said, 'Let there be...'". God spoke and created order out of chaos, the very opposite of evolution. With all of Nature a display of such an orderly creation how is it difficult to place our faith in such? It is a far more difficult belief that, after a cosmic explosion, our world cooled and somehow a single cell amoebae was miraculously birthed, then continued to split and grow until there were all different species, with their own unique DNA, their specific unique characteristics, all from that first single celled organism. Wow. That's faith. It would be easier to believe that, if a tornado were to tear through a junkyard, that it could pick up junk parts and deposit on the other side a perfectly formed Mercedes Benz, a speedboat, and a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Yet any atheist would tell you that it could never happen, that you'd be crazy to believe it. However, the odds are far better of that happening than for the theory of evolution to have come to pass. So who really needs blind faith to bolster their beliefs?
So why do people refuse to believe in God in the face of overwhelming evidence of order in nature? I believe that it is a a relief mechanism to alleviate guilt in their lives. All to often we want to believe we control our destiny, that we know what is best for us, rather than trusting that there is a higher power out there. If we accept the premise of God then we must accept that we don't answer to ourselves, but to a higher authority, and for many that's bothersome. We must face the guilt of our wrong-doing, our sin. However, if there's no God then there's no guilt. No God, no guilt. It is a cheap out in the face of overwhelming natural evidence of an ordered and orderly universe which defies the theory of evolution... It takes far more blind faith not to believe in God that to believe in Him with all Nature singing His praise...
Food for thought...

Truth- Absolute or conditional...

As I was perusing some of my old blogs (yes, I do go back and occasionally read my stuff... Some of it actually still makes sense to me!) and I noticed I've referred often to "truth". Yet as I grow older I realize that "truth" is not consistently defined by society. Sometimes truth is absolute- water is wet, the sun is hot, snow is cold. Most people don't have problems recognizing absolutes in nature as true, but when it comes to our personal lives absolute truth is much harder to acknowledge.
Somehow truth morphs from absolute to conditional when our personal lives are concerned. Conditional truth is when we rationalize around absolute truth to justify our position or words or actions. Example: a man complains about his wife's nagging, or indifference, or lack of affection as a reason for his having an affair. Suddenly the absolute truth that an affair is adultery and adultery is wrong has been changed to "adultery is justifiable because my spouse drove me to it". Conditional truth.
Unfortunately truth is not conditional. It does not depend on our emotional responses to others or situations- it remains constant no matter what our feelings or responses. Truth is an attribute of God, and God is absolute, therefore truth is absolute. "Conditional truth" is merely justification, or rationalization, not truth at all. When we find ourselves rationalizing, or justifying, it's  time to stop what we're doing and recognize the absolute truth we're trying to ignore and change our words or actions accordingly.
As a side note: When we are truthful we don't need a good memory, for truth is truth and does not change. It is when we pervert the truth that we need good memories, for we have to remember what lie we tell so not to confuse it with our next justification or fabrication. Conditional truth is lying to ourselves in the hopes of convincing others that what we say is true...
Food for thought...

Uncle Hack, This One's For You...

My mom is the youngest of six children- Hack, Jack, and Mack, Mary, Katy, and my mom, Becky. Only Mom and Aunt Katy remain, but memories of my aunt and uncles often warmly resonate in my mind. One such memory involved my Uncle Hack, named after my grandfather, Haskell Hall. Anyway, my Uncle Hack loved science fiction. Even as a child I was an avid reader and on one trip to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, when I was perhaps ten years old, to visit my Aunt Dale and Uncle Hack we shared our love of reading, Uncle Hack had many many books around, mostly his science fiction paperbacks. Uncle Hack gave me some of his books to read, if I wanted, and I was lost for the weekend. It was a series about a Professor Jameson, who sent his body into space upon his death and was found some 40 million years later by an advanced race who revived his brain and placed it in a metal body. Thus started his adventures. I was fascinated and read five of the six novels that weekend! But the trip ended, and I never read that last novel, never finished learning the fate of Professor Jameson. My Uncle passed away, I never returned to his home and his books, and for some forty plus years I've wondered how the story ends.
Uncle Hack, you'll be glad to know I will wonder no more. After countless attempts to find these books from the 1960's, after hours of perusing used book stores, flea markets, the internet, et al, I have located all six books and will now get to finish the adventure! I hope the story lives up to the anticipation of some forty years of curiosity. But no matter how the story ends, I have you to thank for starting it. You are missed, Uncle Hack, and loved. And now I have a book to read. This one's for you Uncle!
Food for thought...

Joseph, a Good Old Boy...

I was reading this past week a old book of my long past grandfather's, called "The Lost Books of the Bible" and in it was an account of the birth and early life of Mary, the mother of Jesus. In it her betrothal to Joseph is covered, and quite honestly, I was fascinated by the account, yet it answered some questions that had plagued me for years, but in a surprising manner.
I've often wondered why we hear so little of Joseph after Jesus' early years. We read the account in the Gospels of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, and the whole nativity story. We hear of them moving to Nazareth when Jesus is a young child, and the story of traveling to Jerusalem and leaving Jesus mistakenly behind, then finding him in the Temple at perhaps age twelve. But no real references to Joseph after that. I wondered if perhaps he'd had an accident, or took ill, and subsequently died in Jesus' early years. But then I read this account and a whole new outlook has to be considered.
The text says,
 "For Isaiah saith, there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring out of its root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of the Counsel and the Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him. Then, according to this prophecy, he appointed, that all the men of the house and family of David, who were marriage and not married, should bring their rods to the altar. And out of whatever person's rod after it was brought, a flower should bud forth, and the Lord should sit in the appearance of a dove, he should be the man to whom the Virgin should be given and betrothed. Among the rest there was a man named Joseph, of the house and family of David, and a person very far advanced in years, who drew back his rod when every one besides presented his. So that when nothing appeared agreeable to the heavenly voice, the high priest judged it proper to consult God again, who answered that he who the Virgin was to be betrothed was the only person of those who were brought together, who had not brought his rod. Joseph therefore was betrayed. For, when he did bring his rod, and a dove coming from Heaven pitched upon the top of it, everyone plainly saw that the Virgin was to be betrothed to him..."
I always pictured in my mind a young Mary (this text says she was betrothed at age 14) and a young Joseph, two kids in love and starting a life together. But this certainly makes more sense, for not only is it culturally accurate, it explains why Joseph was first willing to divorce Mary quietly when he found her with child, then why he was conspicuously absent in Jesus' later years. I wonder if we need to change all our Nativity scenes for the sake of accuracy...
Food for thought...