Atheist “Darwin fish” symbol is scientifically inaccurate and foolish

“Darwinism, I would say, is the equivalent of fundamentalism in religion, a blind faith in a theory, regardless of the facts.” ~ Benjamin Wiker (see here)

Like the word “atheist” itself, the atheist “Darwin fish” symbol posits the concept of “God” – or here: “Christ and Christianity” – in order to define itself; thereby symbolizing what atheists are against rather than symbolizing what atheists are for. The American Atheistssymbol, as inaccurate and as misleading as it is, scientifically, at least symbolizes what American Atheists promotes or believes in – scientific progress – as opposed to what they are against.

The words “atheist” and “atheism” are taken from the Greek word: “atheos” (ἄθεος) which, in English, translates as: “God not”, or “without God”. The words “theist” and “theism” come from the Greek word for God: “theos” (θεός), and the “a” (ἄ) which is placed in front of the word (or any word in Greek) simply negates the meaning of the word, in this case “a” “theos” = “no God”. As I said, the concept of God must first be posited and then negated.

In my opinion, this positing of the notion of God and then having to negate it, in order to define one’s belief, is very problematic for atheists. Better, I think, to simply call one’s self a scientist, or a believer in science and scientism. To me, the Darwin fish, which is the Christian fish symbol with feet with the name “Darwin” inside the fish, is both unscientific and foolish. For one thing, again, it’s dependent upon one’s first understanding the meaning of the Christian symbol; and, for another thing, science has never discovered – living or dead – a fish with feet, such as the one represented by the Darwin fish symbol. In fact, every time I see this silly symbol on someone’s vehicle I think to myself: “If that ridiculous symbol symbolized MY beliefs, I certainly would NOT show it to anyone, let alone display the absurdity of my foolish belief – in public – on the back of my vehicle”. (See my book here.)

“Adrian Barnett notes:

“A subject that often crops up on atheist newsgroups is “What is the atheist’s symbol?”
After all, Christians have their cross, Jews have their star, Muslims have their crescent moon and so on. What can Atheists have?”

 The Darwin fish is seen fairly often — either as shown here or with the name Darwin in its body. This has the potential disadvantage of being mistaken as a symbol for belief in evolution. Also, it may be regarded as a cynical attack on a common Christian symbol: the Ichthus (fish): 

Another potential Atheist symbol would be similar to the logo of the band Bad Religion. It consists of a black cross on a white background inside a red circle with a diagonal red slash. We don’t show it here because it is copyrighted. It can variously be interpreted as “no Christians here” or “Christianity forbidden.” This has the serious disadvantage of being an explicitly anti-Christian symbol instead of a pro-Atheist logo.”


“Why the fish was chosen as a symbol of Christianity is something most non-Christians (and, I would image, atheists as well) are probably not aware of. The symbol is much more than simply a fish, it’s also a very clever acronym and acrostic, with each letter of Greek word  ἰχθύς, which means “fish”, representing the first letter of each word in the saying: “Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior” (Koine, or “common”, Greek was used during the time of Christ and is the original language in which the New Testament was written).

Christian Symbolism

The definition and the meaning of Symbols or Icon in early religious art forms. A Catholic sign or icon, such as the Ichthus / Fish Christian Symbol, is an object, character, figure, or color used to represent abstract ideas or concepts – a picture that represents an idea. A religious icon, such as the Ichthus / Fish Christian Symbol, is an image or symbolic representation with sacred significance. The meanings, origins and ancient traditions surrounding Christian symbols date back to early times when the majority of ordinary people were not able to read or write and printing was unknown. Many were ‘borrowed’ or drawn from early pre-Christian traditions. No Fish is mentioned by name either in the Old or in the New Testament. Fish abounded in the Mediterranean and in the lakes of the Jordan, so that the Hebrews were no doubt acquainted with many species. Two of the villages on the shores of the Sea of Galilee derived their names from their Fisheries, Bethsaida (the “house of Fish”) on the east and on the west. There is probably no other sheet of water in the world of equal dimensions that contains such a variety and profusion of Fish. About thirty-seven different kinds have been found.

The Definition and Meaning of the Ichthus / Fish as a Catholic Christian Symbol

Catholic Christian symbolism in art provides a clear graphic illustration which represents people or items of religious significance. What is the definition and the meaning of the Ichthus / Fish symbol? Ichthus is the Greek word for fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ). The initials of the word Ichthus are also used as a Christian acronym of the following Greek words:

Th=Theou (God’s)
U=Uios (Son)
S=Soter (Savior)

Using the Ichthus acronym IChThUS means “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior”.

The Ichthus / Fish was chosen as an early secret Symbol indicating that the person who knew the meaning of the Ichthus was a Christian and safe to associate with. Being a Christian was extremely dangerous for hundreds of years following the life of Jesus due to the persecutions of the pagan Roman Emperors.

The sign of the Ichthus

The sign of the Ichthus was simple to draw consisting basically of two arcs:

It was not necessary to point the fish in any particular direction, the basic symbol was sufficient:

Reference to the Ichthus / Fish Christian Symbol in the Bible

The Easton Bible Dictionary provides the following definition, meaning and emblem for the Fish in the Bible.

Fish are called called ‘dag’ by the Hebrews, a word denoting great fecundity (Gen. 9:2; Num. 11:22; Jonah 2:1, 10).

There was a regular Fish-market apparently in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10), as there was a Fish-gate which was probably contiguous to it.”


“This fish symbol…is a Christian symbol that dates back to the post-apostolic church. The symbol is derived from the Greek word for “fish,” which is “ichthus.” Each letter is representative of words in acrostic form.

The fish symbol became a code word for believers during times of persecution, expressing, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Savior.”


I am of the opinion atheists might do better, in their ongoing search for a symbol which represents their beliefs, if they would use, as symbols, both a clock and a pair of dice, which represent time and chance; two important beliefs for atheists and for those who would attempt to remove God, design, purpose, and intelligibility from our world.

However, even these symbols are problematic. A clock is designed, having only twelve numbers on it, and the dice, too, are designed, have only six sides, with one number on each side. In other words: these represent a limited number of moments in time, on the clock, and a limited number of chances, in rolling the dice, which are not at all what atheists believe about time and chance and the role they supposedly in our world. A better symbol might be a blank-faced clock and blank-sided dice. Perhaps the American Atheists symbol is best, especially if the symbol is updated to depict a fuzzy particle cloud.

It’s hard for anyone, even atheists, to deny the obvious: intelligibility, design, and purpose do exist in our world, and it’s simply foolish to believe otherwise. It saddens me that so many people actually espouse the belief that they prefer to be without God. Personally, I don’t know how they can live in this world apart from the knowledge of God’s wonderful, infinite wisdom, and his wonderful infinite love. My prayer for those who proudly declare themselves as intellectually and emotionally satisfied apart from God is that they would humble themselves and see the awesome and wondrous beauty and design that is so evident in our world, because it is our the perception of the created world that gives us the knowledge of our world’s Creator: “God is!” Only a fool says in her heart: “There is no God!”

See my article: Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by

VIDEO – Scott Hahn and Ben Wiker: Answering the New Atheism, part 2

VIDEO – Father Barron on The New Atheists

VIDEO – Fr. Barron and Dr. Scott Hahn discuss the New Atheism

VIDEO – Fr. Barron comments on Why I Loved to Listen to Christopher Hitchens

VIDEO – Fr. Barron comments on Peter Hitchens and “The Rage Against God”

“For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wisdom 13:5)

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ (Psalm 14:1)


About ajmacdonaldjr

writer, author, blogger
This entry was posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Atheist “Darwin fish” symbol is scientifically inaccurate and foolish

  1. Pingback: The REAL Facebook/Twitter Revolution is NOT being televised « A. J. MacDonald, Jr.

  2. FuzzyTurtlez says:

    i would like to disagree with the 1st paragraph because honestly thats all i read before i wanted to write this comment. The word “Darwin” derives from Charles Darwin. It DOES symbolize what athiests believe in … Evolution. The Darwin Fish rather than the Jesus fish has legs, why? because single cell organisms evolved into everything we know of now just like how fish became land critters or whatever.

    With that said your first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, Darwin Fish = Evolution. So what are we against? Religion that says a “god” has created us.

    • I agree with you, although evolution is only one of the scientific theories atheists believe in and does not symbolize all of scientific progress. The symbol is not supposed to symbolize evolution but atheism, which you will see if you read further.

      • Sarah says:

        No. The symbol represents the belief in evolution which is the antithesis of creationism; not atheism. You can try to spin it all you’d like, but it’s really just supposed to be a spoof on the Jesus fish through which one can express that they agree with Darwin’s theory. It does not mean one is an atheist. Many Christians agree with Darwin’s theory of evolution. You are a silly, silly man.

  3. Choppie says:

    About the first paragraph – the Darwin fish takes its shape from the Jesus fish to mock Christianity, and show how foolish all religion is. It is not saying anything along the lines of “god exists, but so does evolution”. It is meant to wind those Christians up for using their symbol on something against religion. Quite funny, really, and I support it all the way.

  4. I think you’re right…..the Darwin fish “borrows” the Christian symbol in order to mock it…..but the Darwin fish also assumes that one already knows the fish is a Christian symbol. The Darwin fish asserts the reality of evolution but certainly doesn’t prove it. I think it’s sad that some atheists prefer to borrow the Christian symbol, and pervert it, as opposed to creating their own, original symbol.

  5. Lionel says:

    This articles garbage

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed. Total rubbish. I am an atheist and choose to display the Darwin symbol because a) I want to wind up Christians 🙂 b) i believe in the scientific method by which Darwin developed his Theory of Evolution and therefore c) I also agree with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I have no choice to know that the fish is a christian symbol because it is plastered over everyone’s bumper as if I give a rat’s behind that they are christian.

      • Anonymous says:

        Agree. The fish symbol is already all over the place, so it is pretty well known.
        In predominantly Christian areas, everyone knows about it. It isn’t so much a symbol that defines Atheism, but the fact that the religious people put up a symbol that they believe in, but hate it when somebody puts up their symbol that disagrees.
        The fish with legs sums up the belief that life just wasn’t made the way it is, but evolved into it. This is the only concept that most people can comprehend about Atheists. Most people say about us, “So you believe in nothing?” You just can’t rely on people to reach out and try to understand, so you need to get something they relate to.

  6. Thanks for reading it. The main point of the article is to illustrate how atheists smuggle-in Christian concepts, morals, and symbols.

    • mcstevers says:

      you clearly have no idea how atheists think. stop pretending to.

      • All theories of knowledge, all ways of thinking, must have a basis, and our thinking is always based upon something we assume, but cannot necessarily prove, to be true. Ultimately, all reasoning is circular, because our thinking, as an extrapolation of these unproven assumptions, rests upon what we have already assumed, but cannot necessarily prove, to be true.

  7. Michael P says:

    I think this article describes religious people in a nuttshell: You make up things and treat it like a fact.

    Religion is about power and powerlessness. It’s for those who are too weak to face reality.
    Religious leaders control the uneducated or naive followers.

    Your argument “science has never discovered – living or dead – a fish with feet” really made me laugh, It just shows you don’t get or, or choose to not get it.

    Regarding your analysis of the word atheism, which funny enough tries to ridicule atheist, the very thing you accuse us of doing with the Darwin/fish-symbol, it could be so much easier. There would be no need the word “atheism” if people didn’t invent ridiculous imaginary Gods.

    You have the right to believe anything you want – no matter how illogical. On the other hand, I have the right to find it completely ridiculous.

    One last question: Is your religion the “right one”? If your answer is yes, try and explain why the others are not. Somewhere along the way you’ll realise what I think of your religion.

  8. Michael, your opinion is that of many. Contrary to what you and many believe, Christianity is historical, reasonable, rational, and logical to believe. I have made a great study of it. I do not simply take the words of religious leaders, I think and study for myself. My conclusion is that Christianity is correct. Regarding the word “atheist” and the “Darwin Fish”, any time, during a debate that one opponent adopts the terms used by the other opponent, the debate is already over. Atheists posit the notion of “God” and then deny “God” exists. My point being they must first posit “God” in order to define themselves. Better, I think, for atheists to simply proclaim their unbridled faith in science and reason than to posit the notion of “God”. Why invoke “God” at all? To do so is to concede the theist-atheist debate in favor of theism.

    • Michael P says:

      At least you say you study your faith and don’t follow blindly. However, no matter how historical your, or any other religion is, it’s still made up.
      Christians, and pretty much everybody else, point fingers at scientology and say things like “It’s not even a real religion, it’s made up!”. To which I say: “Just as any other religion!”. The only difference is that ex. Christianity has been around about 2.000 years longer and has had time to become “fact” through years and years of brainwashing humans from a very young age. The big advantage the “old religions” have over latter day’s hokus-pokus such as scientology is that they were founded before everyman was educated.

      In my book “god” is a word the represent the god of the religion in question/up for debate. It’s not necessarily “the” god, it might as well be “any” god.

      Point is, just because a religion is founded a long time ago and is “historical” does make it a fact. It’s as I mentioned previously: about power! More often than not it’s political. The bible is a political compromise, where everybody wanted their storey represented. In the end it was agreed that these stories would be collected in one book. That’s also one of the explanations the bible contradicts itself. It’s a political tool meant as a method to control people. Just take a look a US politics today. I thinkit’s scary how much influence religion has. On abortion. On deciding who can build families and who can’t.
      Very scary. …not to forget the money involved. How much money does not change hand due to religion?

      If I walk up to you and say “I can fly!”, it’s not up to you to prove I can’t. I have to prove to you that I can. No one has proved religion yet. …but apparently sending more money and dying in it’s name helps.

      Set your mind free – Be an atheist!

      • magus71 says:

        “It’s as I mentioned previously: about power!”

        None of the apostles gained much power by spreading Christianity. In fact, some died because of it.

        In fact, is not atheist about power? Just as you say: “I thinkit’s scary how much influence religion has. On abortion. On deciding who can build families and who can’t.:

        So it’s about the atheist thinking he or she is the ultimate arbiter of good and bad, right and wrong. It’s about the atheist wanting power. The atheist will quote Nietzsche ad nauseum but when it comes to the Will to Power, well that only applies to religious folk, right?

      • Anonymous says:

        Michael P- BRILLIANTLY written. I couldn’t have said it better myself! Thank you!

    • Jesus loves Darwin says:

      I thought it was a well written, and a well thought out article. I believe athiests thrive off of contention, its what they practice. They know they can can push buttons on christians with no fear of reprocussions because the bible clearly says contention is of the devil. If christians gave up the fish and went to a rainbow that said “no homos” the world wide uproar would be ridiculous… but that would go against a christian’s desire to be like jesus and show everyone love. I can’t say I’m a christian but I can say I have studied both evolution and creation theories and neither can be solidly proved without faith. I personally would prefer to believe in a intelligent creation that says “there is more to live for, there is hope for the future” instead of “your a lucky accident and no matter what happens you do it for nothing besides surviving until tomorrow.” That leads to a very depressing and unsatisfactory life where your only goal is to tear down others and try to make them fall by taking their 2000 year old symbol of faith and mocking it. If you truly were a happy atheist with nothing to prove and no souls to win why wouldn’t you leave it at that? Because athiests thrive off of bringing others down… you (athiests) make me want to go get saved as to not be associated with such an unhappy group.

  9. Michael P says:

    Writing on a mobile phone has it’s downside. I see a “doesn’t” has become a “does” in a critical place. I assume you can spot where. 🙂

  10. Anonymous says:

    Wow, I could not force myself to read through this rhetorical nightmare. Your ignorance amuses me. Keep up the hilarious work! 🙂

  11. Duane Posthumus says:

    Man you are such a Ignorant ID10T…..your whole articile makes no sence….wake up mate!

  12. Andrew says:

    How embarrasingly stupid you are AJ…

    Atheism uses FACTS not mumbo jumbo brainwashing (none of which can be proven) to back up its views!

    There are thousands, if not millions of facts to back up evolution and not one to back up religious doctrine.

    You say you use history to back up your Christian beliefs – history shows that nothing in the bible is true! Based on FACTS!

    • Wow, there a real intellectual critique. Biological evolution = Atoms randomly collide in the void and here we are, which is anti-intellectual, unscientific, and foolishness.

      • Anonymous says:

        Dude biological evolution isn’t just particles randomly colliding.. its natural selection through random or caused mutations. The best genes obviously survive.

      • grandmasterflash says:

        That’s completely untrue and even if it was, it makes more sense than a magic invisible best friend who gave dirt life and intelligence.

  13. Lin says:

    On the whole I found it well written even though misguided and definetely way too stuck up. It is obvious the darwin fish is a joke, and I find it a rather good one. I saw my first one today, decided to look it up on the net and found this site when looking for pictures to share what I’d seen.

    In the comments, this part made me jump: “The main point of the article is to illustrate how atheists smuggle-in Christian concepts, morals, and symbols.” — wait? What? What are “Christian morals” that didn’t exist before Christianity came along? I am fairly sure murder and theft has been condemned before Christianity, charity to the poor has always been a virtue and kindness as well. Or did you mean this giving to the church and making them rich? Or what exactly are “Christian morals and concepts” ? Symbols, sure. But like one of your pictures show, there’re other religious symbols “smuggled in” as well. And did you have a look at Islam recently? They pray, they give to the poor, they don’t take kindly to theft and murder either. Pretty much the same thing defines a good person in their book and in yours. Anyway I see the problem being in the modern concept of copyright. Sorry dude, nobody can claim copyright on humanity. There are things that cannot be owned.

  14. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    I agree the Darwin fish is a clever, light-hearted jab from non religious people at Christians who feel the need shove their somewhat delusional beliefs down the throats of the general public, with trunk and bumper stickers. If you believe in a God who designed everything, well hey, good luck with that. If you believe in a giant purple octopus in the sky who invented toast and potage stamps, it would be about the same from my point of view. Darwin was not perfect, a man of his times, but over the years since his theory was published (and he wasn’t the only one to come up with it) layer upon layer of evidence as stacked up to prove evolution by natural selection, if you want to go on turning a blind eye to it, you will become as extinct as the dinosaurs you don’t believe in. Clinging to the belief in deity is so totally bizarre in today’s society, when are you going to wake up and see that we don’t need a father figure to get on with our lives and that religion causes more damage than good. I’ve just read “10 Books That Really Screwed Up The World” by some biased dick head who you quote regularly on your site. I’m so angry about this book. Whilst it makes many good points about how destructive these books were, and he’s right, once again a conservative Christian blames atheism for the creation of all these books and the evil that followed, generalising over and over that Christians have cornered the market in morality, and all atheists must therefore be evil bastards. What a great book this could have been, if it could have been written with just a little bit of balance and understanding that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but it doesn’t make all religious people bad.

  15. Biological evolution = Atoms randomly collide in the void and here we are, which is anti-intellectual, unscientific, and foolishness.

    • Duane says:

      As opposed to what……some guy up there creating it from thin air….now that is and i quote “is anti-intellectual, unscientific, and foolishness”!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      God damn this frustrates me. Randomly colliding particles? How misinformed you are about evolution. It’s random or caused mutations that lead to natural selection in a species not just random magic particles.

    • Tom says:

      Hey, mates, watch this:

      It explains how evolution works: in a nutshell, it generates as much random features in genes so that different individuals have minimal differences between each other. That way, there is a quite big chance one of the features in one of the individuals helps him surviving to a change in the environment. All the others die. Of course there is still a chance none of the so called features can overcome a massive change to a specie habitat. In that case, they all die. Extinct.
      Thats what is so strange about Nature: we survived thanks to the laws of randomness.
      Just a little thing: we had major changes in our looks during this process, and at least 7 strings of the homo gene died (gotta admit, scientists did name it HOMO to mock you guys) . So, no, we were not made by God.
      And even if we were, praying is a clear waste oftime, because…you know, God is doing a pretty shitty job with the world, if he exists.
      Humanity is its own God: we are here, we are in charge of the world, and no freaking God is. So let us all do a good job at it, and not blame God for shit like hurricanes (cause, you know, winds).

  16. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    That is not what biological evolution equals. Being intellectual is not about throw away lines, it’s about a reasoned, clear-headed examination of the evidence and facts. One of the things creationists (and to be fair, people in general) seem to struggle to grasp is the vast timescales involved and subtle incremental nature of evolution. In our day to day lives we just don’t generally have to think in terms of millions years that are needed to evolve complex life forms, so what I hear over and over from creationists is rhetoric that reflects they think of things happening “instantaneously” eg. “Atoms collide and here we are.” Clearly it did not happen like that. Please open your eyes and your mind that man can come of age and make his own way in the universe as a moral, intelligent and benevolent creature, without having to hold the hand of an imagined parent. The biggest problem of having a God who designed everything, is it begs the question: and how did he get there? Who designed him? And so, an intellectual mind would keep asking that question ad Infinitum. A non intellectual mind would resort to mysticism or faith in a deity, to answer that question.

  17. Isn’t it though? According to evolutionists, this is exactly what evolution is: “atomism applied to biology”, which is anti-intellectial, unscientific, foolishness:

    “Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, each selected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry. Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form: Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt to different environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings, life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproduction and then at language.” ~ Seth Lloyd in, Intelligent Thought, p. 189

    First atoms collide in the void… now they have sex and talk to each other afterwards, and smoke cigarettes too, of course.

    This is “Intelligent Thought”?

    I think NOT!

    See page 98 in my book: “The World Perceived”:

    See: “Intelligent Thought:

  18. Andrew says:

    AJ, the origin of the species (or life) is not about word games… it’s about science, facts and evidence – clearly you know not what one of those words actually means…

    I am equally sure that you don’t know what the word empirical means either…

  19. Biological evolution is unobservable, unrepeatable, and makes no predictions. This is anti-science, not science.

  20. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    The atoms colliding to form molecules is fact. Water is a combination of two Hydrogen atoms and one of Oxygen. It stands to reason and logical thought that given enough time, more complex molecules will form and combine, break apart, be successful and unsuccessful in their combinations. Once again the the creationist argument employs the “instantaneous” rhetoric to try to ridicule the idea that delicate, subtle, and highly incremental changes can occur in biological systems over very long periods of time: “first atoms collide…. now they have sex and smoke cigarettes”. This is not intellectual comment, it’s misguided claptrap. Atoms do collide, they always have, they always will. No they don’t have sex, or smoke cigarettes, more complex forms of life do that. Your definition of the word “foolishness” is interesting. Foolishness to me, is repeating the same phrases, as if the second, third or fourth time I read them, I will give in, to what simply appears to be absolute obstinate and arrogant inability to face facts.

    It is nonsense to suggest that biological evolution is not observable, repeatable and makes no predictions. Where are you getting your information from? There are many examples where man has intervened in species via selective breeding, e.g. the domesticated dog as one really obvious example, plainly observable to all. This is biological evolution: the tangible, measurable changes in colour, body shape, intelligence and behavioural traits that are selectively bred by human beings to create new dogs for pedigree shows or for specific look or purpose. Natural selection is the same process only driven by natural forces (e.g. changes in habitat and environment, food sources, survival needs) over hundreds of millions of years, with a multitude of evolutionary branches and dead ends that can be traced back to a common biological ancestor.

    I notice how you did not tackle the question of who designed the designer? Lets hear “the science” you appear to want to support, behind that explanation.

  21. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    No chance and someone who believes in God (for which no scientific evidence exists) trying to claim I have a “religious faith” in evolution (for which there is a mountain of evidence) is really clutching at straws. Still no word on how God got there. Keep ducking and diving, I wish you all the best.

  22. Andrew says:

    2nd, you can’t ask the religious how God got there – they are incapable of thinking further than him…

    Religion is almost like the Dunning Kruger effect on those with limited mental abilities…

    Those afflicted by religion need to believe and this need far outweighs the logic, so they become entirely corrupted by their own confused reality, until they are able to convince themselves of absolutely anything…

    Eventually it gets so bad that the convincing part is no longer required, as they simply ‘know’ what they believe is the truth… And they will say absolutely anything, no matter how stupid, in defence of that ‘knowledge’…

    They may even have you believe (and be utterly convinced of it themselves) that, as is written just over 1,400 words into their sacred book, a snake is able to speak…

  23. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    Andrew, I guess you might be right, though you take a slightly harder line than me. If I had any faith in anything, it might be the idea that one day, I might say something to a creationist that just tweaks a neuron or a brain cell in a slightly different direction from the current hard-wiring, creating just the tiniest chink of light, the light of discovery, enlightenment and fact, and that sows a seed of doubt, that gradually takes hold, slowly but surely until it finally lifts the dark cloying fabric of ignorance that intelligent design needs to pedal it’s medieval wares on a modern society that does not need it. But probably barking up the wrong tree.

  24. Evidence for God is everywhere around you… evidence for biological evolution doesn’t exist… the non-theory is simply a God-denying assertion of unreasonable faith in time and chance, which is not science at all. Quite embarrassingly so, actually.

  25. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    What evidence is there for God’s existence? The Bible I suppose you would say. Which isn’t evidence of anything. The book Peter Pan is not evidence of Never Never Land.
    You have no grounds to refer to those who subscribe to evolution as having “unreasonable faith”. I can take you to museum, or an ancient cliff, and show you fossils layered in rock strata, that demonstrate the gradual progression of species over millions of years. I can show you dog breeders who selectively breed for biological features. I can show you DNA and genetic studies that corroborate the evolutionary ancestry of all living things. I can show you scientific studies of bacteria, fruit flies and arctic foxes that have demonstrated evolution in action, through controlled experimentation and successive generations.
    The embarrassment is yours, you cannot show me any evidence of God. All you can show me is hocus pocus. Evidence of God would be a photograph, a movie, a recording, some tangible repeatable process that gave us no doubt of God’s existence. Such evidence doesn’t exist. The difference between my “faith” as you put it and your faith, is that I’am open minded and you are not. If one day God floats down on a cloud and lands on the White House lawn to preach us the error of our ways, that is one news story I’ll be glued to, and then I will have some apologising to do. I’ve read your biography on amazon, you were indoctrinated in religion from an early age, so it’s not really your fault. But the mental cruelty parents inflict on their children by burdening them with notions of deity, and fairy stories about God & original sin should be outlawed. It’s time to move on.

  26. Andrew says:

    2nd, I couldn’t have put it better myself…

    AJ, just your saying that there is evidence for God proves that you are entirely delusional, and that you clearly don’t know what the word even means…

    Go and look up “evidence”, because your definition has clearly been very warped and twisted from an entire life of abuse by brainwashing…

    And as is the case with so many abused, you are attempting to fool adults with the lies only children can believe after being lied to extensively themselves…

    I sincerely hope you haven’t bred, and don’t have plans to…

  27. Your post is evidence God exists. Intelligence and language don’t develop from atoms colliding in the void, especially with no teleology to guide them. You probably have more faith in time and chance, which do nothing, than I do in God. Strange hopes and stranger fears:

    • Michael P says:

      I don’t mean to be rude, but really AJ, you’re so brainwashed it’s impossible to argue with you, even with facts in hand. If you could be objective and search for facts, it would be easy to set you free from religious constraints and tyranny. But you need some serious de-programming for that to happen.
      Even for religious people you are something extra. You most have gone through something that really put you down, something that was hard to handle and made you an easy target for religion.

      I truly hope you will snap out of it, but I doubt it. What I do hope is, that you will keep your insanity to yourself and stop spreading your religion to others.

    • Andrew says:

      It’s not evidence, you fool – go look up the word before you answer next time…

      Even us guys in darkest Africa have dictionaries…

  28. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    No. My post is evidence that I exist, not God. I know how I got here, what we’re debating here is independent evidence of God’s existence as a separate, distinct, tangible, intelligent entity, who designed and built the natural universe (or universes if that particular theory turns out to be true). So evidence of my existence is this post, photographs of me, movies and recordings of me, if you arrange to meet me in a certain place and time, I turn up, so you can shake my hand and talk to me (although this evidence is not available after I die), my DNA fingerprint that will be present in my two children, the output of work products and artistic efforts I have made in my life time. These things could all be identified as evidence of my existence. Where are these things for God? Please try to answer this question in plain English rather than riddles, theological obscurity or pseudo scientific terminology.
    Teleology comes from a stand point that the end state was always “intended” therefore someone or something had to intend it, which as you rightly say Atoms can’t intend anything. But this is more creationist thinking, not evolution. It is the anthropic principle that the universe was made for us, which it isnt. We are the tip of one twig on the extensive evolutionary tree, there have been many success and failures on a myriad of other branches of the tree. Chance could have just as easily made another branch more successful than us, and I could be sitting here writing this post as some kind of intelligent descendent of a velociraptor, while tucking into a fresh rat, rather than toast.
    I don’t think all is lost for you, you are clearly an intelligent person, well read and articulate. You’ve just found yourself trapped in an intellectual cul-de-sac and you’ve invested so much in it, it’s very hard for you to admit that your beliefs have no basis in reality. Whereas I used the analogy of God landing on the White House lawn as the only thing I would need to change direction, my “god” has already landed on the White House lawn, but you cover your eyes and sing loudly to deny it.

    Free your mind. please. It’s never too late, until to you die of course.

    But then I guess you believe in heaven and hell, so then we get into that whole fantasy as well.

  29. “Many people mistakenly believe that Darwinism asserts the development of life from simple to ever greater complexity as the goal of natural selection, as if humans were some sort of natural and highest end result of (the process of) natural selection. Yet this teleological and goal-driven type of evolution is not Darwinism; Darwin repudiated a teleological explanation for life, because teleology requires some purposing agent in order to guide and direct life toward a higher goal, which must exist either within nature (e.g., life-force, World-Soul) or beyond nature (i.e., a supernatural Creator).

    The modern scientific theory of evolution cannot make allowances for either unknown mysterious forces or a Creator: life must be seen as having developed purposelessly from nature alone without the benefit of any preordained plan, goal, or end in mind. Teleology—also referred to as orthogenesis (i.e., a direction of evolution toward a final goal by an intrinsic principle, or force)—has no place in Darwinian evolutionary theory, “orthogenesis and other teleological explanations of evolution [having] now been thoroughly refuted, and it has been shown that indeed natural selection is capable of producing all the adaptations that were formally attributed to orthogenesis.”66 (Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is”, p 275)

    A view of the living world which allows for no purpose is, to say the least, a very dismal view. Evolutionary thinking has a strong ten- dency to cause one to view life as an insignificant event in the history of an insignificant planet that will (eventually) die an insignificant death. There is little significance without purpose. The modern scientific evolutionary model of the living world is, in this regard, not unlike the modern scientific cosmological view of the earth as an insignificant speck in the vast emptiness of space. The biblical view of the living world is thought to be prescientific and mythological, yet it does present the living world to us as-it-appears to us and as being invested with meaning and purpose. Rather than believing that humankind has descended from quarks and bacteria, the Bible presents humankind as having been created by God “in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). This view of life—especially human life—is wholly opposed to the evolutionary view of life.” ~ Me (“The World Perceived”, p 94) See:

  30. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    AJ thank you. Thank you for confirming my understanding of teleology. And thank you for confirming why creationist Christians can never look the facts of evolution square in the face and why non religious people will always question faith in a God as a designer.

    You need God to be there otherwise you see no purpose in life. And that is the fundamental difference between you and me. I don’t need God for me to see meaning in the Universe(s).

    There is nothing “dismal” about life without God. The universe that we can see is such a fascinating, mind-blowing place, it carries its own intrinsic wonder, without it being created by anyone. And there are so many wonderful things to experience here on Earth, a sunny day, a nice meal, a good wine, the love of a partner, the love of children, good friends, a good book or movie, getting fit, doing charity work, the list goes on and on and on, and none of it requires God.

    Your dismal view of the world without God, comes from a very personal place, you mentioned a Catholic upbringing and being depressed at one point in your life. Perhaps this is why you need God to be there, to make you feel better. But you have to recognise it for what it is, it is the need of a child for its parent to comfort it, nothing more. You are not a child.

    • There are no facts about “theory” of evolution. There are no facts about string “theory” either. You need to do your homework and stop living in “a denial of God at any cost” mentality. Unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, theories that make NO predictions ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC. Do you NOT see that?

  31. Andrew says:

    I give up…

    Stupid people will clearly always believe whatever they want to believe… No matter how much they have to distort the facts to support their cause…

    Frightening, but evidently true…

    Sorry AJ, I forgot you don’t know what evidently means… I suggest you look it up in a dictionary…

    Have a nice life, now, ya hear?

    • Calling me stupid is, well: stupid. Is it not? No good argument have you? No, you don’t. Back to the drawing board. Time for some scientific ideas, and time to stop the foolishness.

  32. Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God,
    and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

    Instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air,
    or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water,
    or the luminaries of heaven, the governors* of the world, they considered gods.

    Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods,
    let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these;
    for the original source of beauty fashioned them.

    Or if they were struck by their might and energy,
    let them realize from these things how much more powerful is the one who made them.

    For from the greatness and the beauty of created things
    their original author, by analogy, is seen.

    Wisdom 13:1-5

  33. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    AJ Ok so lets deconstruct your latest comments section by section. Firstly your use of the term ‘theory’ in quotes meaning to say “its only a theory” therefore not fact. A common piece of attempted subterfuge used by creationists when there is no where to go. So what a lot people don’t realise is that there are two main dictionary definitions of the word “theory” as follows:

    a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
    a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

    When referring to evolution it is the 1st kind off definition that applies. Check it out in the scientific literature. Creationists always refer to evolution with second definition, which in resolution to evolution is incorrect.

    Secondly, whilst I agree and understand Andrew’s frustration at your answers, I do not agree with the way he tackles the debate. Andrew, please could you confine your comments to reasoned argument, not insults, you are not doing the cause of atheists any good. I admit, the red mist comes up for me too, and I’ve made comments I regret, but I think the only way to continue to break this down is through reason and fact.

    Thirdly, AJ it is disappointing to see you, once again, repeating earlier comments that evolution makes no predictions, is unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, when I have clearly dealt with these falsehoods in earlier comments using plain examples. All it does in my mind, is confirm the weakness of your argument.

    Lastly, you sidestep all comments about you needing God to be there for personal reasons. And your need for God to be there leads you to use phrases like “God denial at all costs”, which comes from a point of view of such arrogant belief (faith) that God exists in order for a denial to occur. This phrase is as meaningless to me as “Tooth Fairy denial”. No one has ever shown me any evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Does that mean I am in denial about the Tooth Fairy? I think not.

    I am not denying God, I am simply looking for evidence of God in the same way as I can see evidence of evolution, or evidence that Australia is a large continent, or evidence that the Empire State Building is tall or evidence that Mozart wrote Eine Kliene Nachtmusik. If you could show me something I would recognise as evidence of God’s existence then I would look at that with open eyes and eagerness.

    You put forward a verse from the Bible as “scientific” evidence that those who deny God are foolish. It’s a nice poem, with an interesting proposition, but it is not science and it is not evidence of anything, other than someone wrote it, and it was their opinion.

    Tell me, what is “the cost” that I will pay, for, in your opinion, denying God? I’d be fascinated by that answer.

    • brainexercise says:

      Stupendous, reasoned summary and response. If everyone had your attitude, this debate would move along more efficiently. Thank you for not resorting to sound bites, insults, “gotchas,” and other devices to persuade others to side with you. Peer reviewed research, facts, and scientific principles will help us all who seek greater understanding, regardless of where the truth leads.

  34. You’re not be honest concerning the science. There is no evidence for biological evolution, the “theory” is invalid. Your refusal to acknowledge God leads you to believe the world somehow created itself, sans intelligence.

    A legitimate scientific theory must be confirmed by testing, observation, making prediction, and these must be repeatable by anyone within the scientific community.

    (Think: “cold fusion”, here.)

    So-called String “theory” is yet another “theory” that’s untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable, and makes no predictions.

    “String theory is on the ropes. After decades of prominence as the key to physics’ elusive “theory of everything,” challengers say the hypothesis is unraveling. Why? Because there haven’t been experiments to prove it — and there don’t seem to be any on the horizon.”


    The same can be said for the “theory” of evolution, yet few are willing to admit this truth.


    Come up with valid theories instead of invalid theories.

    The Scientific Method for Kids – “Experimental evidence is what makes all of the observations and answers in science valid (truthful or confirmed). The history of evidence and validations show that the original statements were correct and accurate. It sounds like a simple idea, but it is the basis of all science. Statements must be confirmed with loads of evidence. Enough said.”


    “Loads of evidence.”

    “Enough said.”

    What is “the scientific method”?

    “The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

    2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

    When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.”


    People who believe in the “theory” of biological evolution are fools who believe in a pseudoscientific assertion rather than in God.

    Wikipedia – Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

    “Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.

    What’s the cost people pay for denying God? Do you not love God and your neighbor as yourself? Are you kind to others, doing good for them and treating them as you would yourself? Doing is more important than believing. Our beliefs logically direct out actions, but sometime they don’t. A God denying atheist can be a kinder person than a so-called “believer”, and it will be better, in this instance, on judgement day, for the atheist than for the hypocrite “believer”. But it’s possible the atheist not be the kindest person too.

    We will all be judged according to what we have done, whether good or evil, and we are all called to repentance of and faith in Christ so that we can become more like him, and less life our normally self-centered selves.

  35. “Perhaps they [the Darwinists] are reluctant to confess error. Perhaps they fear that the fundamentalists will gloat over their discomfiture. These would be human failings, but just the sort that one must resolutely put aside. I urge the Darwinists to take the public into their confidence by a full disclosure. They are not expected to be infallible, confession is good for the soul, and candor is always highly valued.” ~ Norman MacBeth, “Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason”, (Harvard: The Harvard Commons Press, 1971) p. 150

    I’ve been explaining, recently, to people commenting on two, different blog posts, why the “theory” of biological evolution is not a valid theory, scientifically speaking. But because they don’t believe in God as the Creator of the life and of the world, they insist biological evolution is a proven, scientific fact, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, and that I’m stupid for believing in God as the Creator of life.

    This foolishness of unbelievers is nothing new, and is something the writer of Wisdom wrote about long ago:

    “Instead either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.” ~ Wisdom 13:2

    Too such foolish peoples, both then and now, the elements of the world are solely responsible for the existence of the world, and of life.

    Fire, heat, matter, energy, time, chance… these are the “gods” of those who deny the Creator God who made the heavens and the earth, and life on the earth.

    Never underestimate the power of the made up, closed mind that denies and hates God. Such a mind always has and always will believe anything, no matter how foolish and unscientific, so long as it replaces their need to believe in God.

    Such fools say “Science be damned, we will not believe in God!”

    And so, today, we have the death of science, due to foolishness.

    Today we have foolishness and fantasy taught as scientific fact.

    Mary Midgely has given us an apt description of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution: “The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, and cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins.” From this perspective, the evolution versus creation controversy is a controversy over which story of human origins (Genesis or Evolution) makes more sense to us, not which account of origins is scientifically correct.

    See: Mary Midgely, “Evolution as a Religion”, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1

    Very simply, evolution is: atomistic philosophy applied to biology. Darwin’s success was due to the fact that, because of his naturalistic and materialistic theory for the development of life, the entire cosmos was now explicable by recourse to the atomistic philosophy.

    Benjamin Wicker explains the atomistic nature of Darwinian evolutionary theory:

    “Matter is the only reality; and by its random motion and cohesion, it creates the appearance of form (i.e., species). The complex unity, then, is the accidental result of the random variations of simple material constituents. The origin of species, therefore, is the random mutation of matter on the atomic level.” ~ Benjamin Wicker, “Moral Darwinism”, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002) p. 217~ 98

    Lest anyone think this is not precisely what the Darwinists believe, and what they would have us to believe as well, consider the following statement, made by Seth Lloyd, published (recently) in a book purporting to defend the “truths” of Darwinian evolution against the “errors” of the (upstart) Intelligent Design Movement:

    “Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, each selected for by the lo- cal concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry. Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form: Such a form of pro- to-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt to different environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings, life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproduction and then at language.” ~ Seth Lloyd in, “Intelligent Thought”, (Vintage, 2006) p. 189

    This is what the evolutionists would have us to believe:

    Atoms colliding randomly in the void… eventually become people capable of communication through the use of language.

    The “…” is a problem, from the standpoint of science.

    Other than “…” it makes a good story, but stories are not science; there’re only stories.

    The “theory” of biological evolution is untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable, makes no predictions, and is without experimental proof.



  36. Andrew says:

    2nd, you’re probably right…

    But I’ve been through this before… too many times to mention… AJ clearly NEEDS to believe in his hocus pocus man-made God (who just appeared from Scotch mist one day)…

    How about we reverse this discussion?

    AJ, you seem adamant that there is no science behind evolution – no scientific facts to support it?

    Please do me a favour – give me one scientific fact that proves your God exists…

    Just the one will do…

    Just a teeny little tiny one…

    But be warned, I asked for a fact, so please don’t quote some rubbish from the bible, which was written by people, as fact – that just doesn’t wash…

    Go on, I dare you – one evidence-based fact…

    Let the word games begin!

    (By the way, I am still waiting for you to base even one of your arguments on evidence – something you’ve managed to duck and dive throughout this entire thread)

  37. Andrew says:

    Oh, and “look how amazing all that exists in the world is – there MUST have been a creator” is not a fact – so let’s put that one to bed right away!

  38. The fact that you were able to ask that question is proof God exists. Inanimate matter/energy didn’t produce you, nor did it produce your intelligent question, God did.

  39. Here’s a post I wrote today about the foolishness of evolution and the death of science:

  40. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    Lets put aside accusations of foolishness. And may be stay away from the existence of God for a minute,because I think it upsets you, that some people might be perfectly happy, without God.

    Science is not dead, nor can it die, while there are people around who are willing to say: “show me the evidence”, and “hold on, that doesn’t quite add up”. It will die a horrible death, the day we all agree that the only explanation we need for everything is “God made it so”.

    Have a read of this very concise Wikipedia summary of the real experimental evidence (with references) that evolution by selection is very real phenomenon. The silver fox experiment is an interesting one that showed how selective breeding for “tameness” led to physiological changes in successive generations of the animal, changes in colour, floppy ears instead of pointed, spots and other irregular features.

    This is evidence, real, observable, tangible, repeatable, evidence of evolution by selection that makes predictions e.g. If we steer the breeding couples in this direction, we will get tamer animals. And then proving it, by doing it. This evidence shows the biological mechanics of evolution by selection are real.

    If you are really against science, then don’t heat up your food, and take what youve got out of the fridge and store it on your front porch, put your tv and computer in the bin, throw away your phone, don’t listen to music on your record player or iPod, don’t drive or take a train, boat or plane anywhere, don’t take medicine when you are ill, and let children die without a blood transfusions and malaria tablets. If science has no place to bring positivity to society then lets not have it and return to the Stone Age.

    Maybe some of that was unecessary, but I’m making the point that these things are with us today because there were people out there who were willing to suggest that maybe God didn’t make everything and maybe there are some other answers we could find out.

  41. So now you’re asserting the breeding of animals as proof of the theory of biological evolution.

    You say “If we steer the breeding couples in this direction.” If “we” “steer” breeding couples “in this direction” is not inanimate, unintelligent matter/energy evolving in no particular direction.

    Forget intelligence, forget direction, forget purpose… biological evolution has none.

    Stop smuggling in intelligence, design, and purpose. Evolution has none.

    Maybe you should study what evolution is before you criticize my position.

  42. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    As I’ve explained before on previous posts, experimental evolution simply proves the mechanics of biological evolution through selection. In this case humans moulding the direction. In nature the same biological process occurs, but the shaper is environment, food sources, survival and so forth. You need to do better than this AJ. I understand what evolution is and there is no “design” to smuggle in, that’s a creationist stance.

  43. Andrew says:

    OK, AJ… Your ignorance, lies and stupidity are driving me crackers! And filling my inbox with your crap is becoming tiresome…

    How do I unsubscribe from your drivel?

  44. To prove biological evolution you would have to show the mechanism by which atoms developed into people. This cannot and has not been done, nor will it ever be done. It takes faith to believe atoms developed into people. More faith than I have to believe God created the world and everything in it. Biological evolution is faith-based contrary to all evidence.

    As philosopher and ethicist Mary Midgely explains:

    Without this unifying urge, science would be nothing but mindless, meaningless collecting [of facts]…this is why the sciences continually go beyond everybody’s direct experience, and does so in directions that quickly diverge from that of common sense. . . inevitably in the end they require metaphysics, the attempt to see the world as a whole, to harmonize [the facts]… these intellectual constructions present problems of belief which are often quite as difficult as those of religion, and which can call for equally strenuous efforts of faith. This happens at present over relativity, over the size and expansion of the universe, over quantum mechanics, over evolution and many other matters.” ~ Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 120

    You need to study your beliefs, and see why they require more faith than mine.

    I don’t have the faith you guys have… blind faith contrary to all scientific evidence. I have more respect for science than that.

    See: Evolution as Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears –

    See: Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and its Meaning –

  45. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    AJ thanks for your comment, I assure you there is no greater faith, than the belief in an intelligent designer, called God, but I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

    But one point, if we were designed, why such a poor design? Why wire us up so haphazardly e.g the wasted nerve material in the laryngeal nerve? Why the same tube for air and foo so that we can choke easily? Why give us blind spot at the back of our heads? Why make memory and brain functions so unreliable? Why childbirth so awkward, potentially dangerous ( without modern medicines assistance) and painful? Why knees so vulnerable? Why so susceptible to cancers and diseases? Why can’t we see in infra-red or ultraviolet? Why do we need to wear sunglasses if we were designed for the planet? Evolution has explanations for these questions, but does the almighty designer have any answers?

    The answer will be – God made us in his own image and its not for us to question. But it begs the question, if we are in his image, then why is his image so poorly designed? Which brings us back to circular problem of who designed the designer?

    It is a shame we can find no common ground, especially as you keep referring me to read Midgley, who seems to have something interesting to say but writes about philosophy, which is not science e.g. Descartes “I think therefore I am” when clearly one needs to “be” before they can think. That kind of sums up philosophy for me, but I can’t claim to know anything about philosophy or find much use for it in modern life, so will have to accept my ignorance of philosophical viewpoint.

    One thing I notice about nay-sayers of scientific theories (both kinds) e.g. you mentioned String Theory in one of your posts, (and Mary mentions quantum mechanics and expansion of the universe etc), is that healthy scientific debate, i.e. that which allows the biologists, physicists, cosmologists etc to openly challenge each other’s ideas and evidence is exploited by those with an anti-science agenda to fill any crack that appears during debate, with the default answer: they can’t prove anything, can’t fully agree on anything, so we can default back to the answer: that God did it. With no burden of proof on them, other than the absence of final proof of a current scientific theory. It seems like a double standard to me. This is bad science anyway. The great physicist Richard Fyneman once said :that good science is always leaving some room for doubt, and it’s about building evidence that makes your theory more and more likely to be true, but you can never be 100% certain. That way when God does turn up, and we can all visit him, take pictures, a blood sample etc then science can accept God into our great body of knowledge. And we can finally ask him why he left so many tantalising clues that evolution was how we all got here. The church that made Galileo recant his discoveries that the Earth revolves around the Sun, is the same kind of faith that leaves room for only one answer: it must be God and we are in the centre of the universe.

    Finally, your obsession with atoms spontaneously turning into human beings, just isn’t worth responding to in any depth, because you simply can’t accept the beautifully simple idea that we sit at the tip of a twig of just one branch of a huge evolutionary tree, that started over 3 billion years ago with a few basic molecular structures, amino acids, proteins and gradually, mind-bogglingly slowly, incrementally and subtly developed into more complex structures, single called organisms, multi celled organisms, bacteria, amoeba, trilobytes, plankton, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, primate, all with multiple branching mutations, with some branches succeeding and some dying off. Nature selected the larger brains and intelligence as a pretty effective survival tool, which is why we are here today, to experience and witness the wonder of our universe. It could have just as easily, not been so, and bacteria could have just as easily remained the dominant life on Earth for billions of years, and there would have been no-one around to debate how they got here.

  46. Andrew says:

    Come on AJ, let’s get the Darwin recanted on his death bed myth from you…

    I know you can do it!

    Religious crazies LOVE that one, as if it proves something…

    2nd, I do love that part about the religious jumping on every teeny tiny little crack in science that hasn’t been fully discovered or figured out yet.

    They love to use that as an argument, yet the gaping canyon’s in their doctrine means nothing to them… Snakes do not talk, seas do not part at the command of people etc.

    I have a few more questions for you AJ: And as you are so simple, I will throw them all into one:

    How old is the planet Earth (in years please), how long have we been on it (in years please), when was the universe created (in years please), who/what made it, and who made whatever made it and when, and who made whatever made that, and when?

  47. Andrew says:

    And yes, I am embarrassed about the grammatical error I made above – I will try not to do it again!

    One last question AJ, are you planning to bring back the Crusades?

    I bet you’d love to!

  48. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    Andrew, thanks for your comments, perhaps I should make it a life mission to fight back against Intelligent Design and the notion of God as a designer. If I was a Christian, I would be so frustrated with God, for not simply appearing across every TV channel one day and saying something like: “look you guys, I designed everything ok, stop wasting your time trying to work it out and focus on something else ok? The apocalypse is next Tuesday anyway…….what, oh…..ok…sorry I wasn’t supposed to say that last bit………..well why put it on the auto cue then?………..what do you mean it’s St Peter’s day off? He normally does the auto cue…. Ok we’ll I’ve said it now.”

    Then we could stop the debate and worship God in the full knowledge that he really exists and he really designed everything. The I’d email him with a list of “bugs” in the design, to see if they could be added to the modification design approval board.

    Andrew you need to stop goading AJ, I’m trying to be a little more light-hearted here. There are other parts of his web site e.g. Where he has evidence of demons operating in the modern world, a naked man eating another mans face, is clearly a demon, and not someone with a mental health problem. Before you know it, both you and I will be evidence of demons operating in the modern world, though I don’t recall eating any faces recently.

  49. Andrew says:

    I haven’t developed a penchant for faces either… And I think that guy was supposed (from what I remember) to be whacked on drugs, as well as being crackers…

    And you would think, being the godless heathen that I am, some demon would have gotten into me by now…

    Yet I see far more evil in religious institutions than I would ever be capable of…

    But I STILL don’t use any religious bullshit as my moral compass… I wonder is there any hope for poor souls like me, who simply refuse to believe the lies people like AJ propagate?

  50. 2ndUniverseOnTheLeft says:

    Andrew, I guess it depends on your definition of “hope” and whether you believe in the existence of a soul. AJ will probably be 100% certain that he has a soul, and that there is an afterlife, and I’m not certain of either of these things, though there seems to some compelling physical evidence of “energy” (electromagnetic spikes, recorded voices, changes in temperature etc) present in certain locations purported to be “haunted” which to me are worthy of further investigation. (Also a lot of hyped-up nonsense and over-dramatised eye witness accounts). Like I said before, good science is about leaving some room for doubt and then assessing the available evidence, never ruling anything out, where someone might have some evidence gathered.

    At the moment for me, there is not enough evidence of an afterlife, or a soul, so it’s all about the short time we have here on Earth, and making damn sure you appreciate the absolute privilege it is to be alive, and to witness this universe and all it has to offer.

    You know some people might say, why waste your time trying to convince creationists what they believe is unscientific. Apart from the obvious danger of teaching Intelligent Design in schools, let me tell you and anyone else reading this: a couple of months ago, I had to go for an operation, and the consultant surgeon wanted to explain to me, why I could live without my gall-bladder and he asked me a question before explaining it. He asked me: “do you believe in evolution?” To me, it was like asking me: “do you believe in Australia?” After I got back on my chair, and spluttered, “of course I believe in evolution” (do I look like someone who doesn’t believe in evolution?) he proceeded to explain how our species can do without this organ, but rabbits band bears can’t. But this showed me, we are on the thin end of the wedge, this guy had been told to ask that question before giving any Darwinistic type explanations. This is in a hospital, a place driven by scientific medical knowledge, not a church. Lets keep the mysticism, where it belongs.

    • Andrew says:

      2nd, I agree with most of what you say…

      But I don’t leave any room for anything supernatural…

      I am kinda past that phase… Admittedly it was fairly early in life (about the same time Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny went, God and anything supernatural went with them)…

      I wouldn’t know how to be anything but an atheist, it’s been so long, nor do I have any desire to find out.

      I think religion is the most wicked thing ever invented by human beings, and believe me, we are capable of horrific evils, as history is witness to.

      And yes, I have an intense dislike for religious people. I don’t like stupid people, in general, but they take the cake!

      Yes, I am harsh, I know, but my words never harmed anyone. AJ and his ilk, and their lies, are still killing thousands by the day over religion… and deep down, and sometimes even on they surface, they’re ever so proud of it.

      I am embarrassed to say that I am part of the same species…

  51. Taylor says:

    You cannot argue the view of atheists or scientists on evolution because you are neither. This is clearly illustrated by all the false statements you have made about evolution and science.
    The symbol was created by two men promoting atheism and free thinking. Yes, It was a way to illustrate the evidence of evolution being an inarguable fact rather than the beliefs in the bible of Christianity.
    But that does not mean anyone who puts it on their car is an atheist.
    I am a very spiritual person who is studying zoology and animal behavior, and I have found my most intensely spiritual moments through my interactions with animals. The universe, and nature in it self have enough incredibly inspiring and mindblowing happenings that do not require a belief in one specific religion.
    The way I see it, by denying the beauty and logic in the patterns of nature (including evolution) straight middle finger up to whatever god you may believe in.
    And so is judging others, a very non-Christian thing to do; but you should already know that considering your extensive studies.

    For those of you who are atheist and promote the symbol that is fine, it was created by atheists anyway. I am not atheist, nor do I belong to any religion but I promote the symbol as well. I admire it because Christians cannot ignore seeing it and becoming infuriated, just like they cannot ignore the obvious logic and reality that is evolution. Which is why we get radical incorrigible narrow minded people such as the one who wrote this article.
    the great thing about science is whether you believe it or not, it’s still real. And it’s happening constantly.
    And the way I see it, “god” gave you a brain, so you should use it to full capacity rather than limiting yourself to radical Christianity.

    And most importantly, Darwin was not an atheist. He said himself he was agnostic. The symbol can be for anyone who acknowledges the existence of evolution and respect Darwin’s work.

  52. small loans says:

    Hi, its pleasant post regarding media print, we all be aware of
    media is a wonderful source of facts.

  53. cynic says:

    You don’t get it do you. It’s an evolutionary, humorous take on the stupidity of symbolism and the infantile need to cling to religious totems of all kinds. Christianity is very po-faced. Lighten up. It’s amusing and clever.

  54. On the contrary… the Darwin symbol affirms the evolutionist’s need for symbols which represent their (unscientific) belief. Why else have a fish with feet, and the name of their apostle of dirt worship DARWIN in the middle of it? 🙂

  55. Ignostic Atheist says:

    Seems the entire point rests on the idea that atheists borrow from theism in order to make their point, which you describe with that business about postulating theism in order to negate it.

    I presume you don’t believe in gremlins, thereby making you an agremlinist. I don’t understand why you would feel the need to postulate the existence of gremlins to hold a belief that you don’t think they exist. How silly of you. Here’s what actually happens: someone else makes the statement, and then you reject it. Easy peasy. As an atheist, theists make the claim that there is a god, and I reject it.

    • Andrew says:

      AJ is the ringmaster of a semantic circus!

      He seems to know what everyone believes, as though he can read minds…

      AJ, using semantics to twist what other people say around to suit your agenda does not prove anything, other than that you are not very bright… Which we already know… You can stop proving it now – we KNOW already, ya hear?

  56. You got the point of the post… and as you say: you’re an “a- theist”, which proves my point. Why don’t you simply state what you believe, as opposed to what you don’t (a-) believe? That’s my whole point, which you just proved.

    • Andrew says:

      You’re having us on, right?

      Must be, there can’t be any other explanation…

      Are you giving English lessons, or trying to prove something that you never can?

    • Ignostic Atheist says:

      “Why don’t you simply state what you believe, as opposed to what you don’t (a-) believe?”

      Wait, do you mean like stating that I think there is a complete and utter lack of personified supernatural influence in the reality we exist in. My goodness, it’s a shame we don’t have a word for that which would be so much easier to say and encapsulate it in entirety.

      I’ll tell you what man, the day everyone in the world stops believing in a god, is the day I’ll stop using the word atheist.

      No, here’s one better. I think I’ll suggest that atheism is the positive statement, saying that reality is exactly what it is, without needing to postulate anything additional, and theism is the negative statement, by virtue of the removal of the A, suggesting that atheism’s position is incorrect and that there does exist, in fact, something invisible and intangible. So why are you hijacking our word? You have to assume reality before assuming reality plus god, and therefore you are assuming atheism.

      Now, do you routinely fail to click reply on people who embarrass you, or am I special. Tell me I’m special.

  57. Dan Arel says:

    This post is a text book example of what ignorance looks like. Bravo. Idiocy has been brought to new levels.

  58. Andrew says:

    Funny, AJ, every time you make another comment, I think:

    This guy is having us on… he can’t be as big an ignoramus as that!

    Then you make another comment, and slowly but surely you remove all doubt.

    Must have something to do with all the brainwashing you clearly endured to believe what you believe, and to absolutely refuse point blank to see reason.

    When someone has to go as far as telling bald-faced lies every time they need to ‘prove’ their point, then clearly, there are no limits to how far they will go.

    I cringe with embarrassment at your comments, when I realise that I am part of the same species as you…

    Clearly, you will never get over the abuse you must have suffered to get to the beliefs you claim to hold – you are so blind to it that every time someone makes an argument here that proves what you believe is impossible, you simply ignore it. And no, I am not going to give examples, you know exactly what they are – and there are literally hundreds on this page…

    You’re not special, you’re the same as all other absurd theists (sheep) – carefully picking and choosing which ridiculous bronze-age myths you will believe and which you won’t, as though it is your right to believe in talking snakes, but not in fairies, in people walking on water, but not father Christmas…

    There is absolutely zero logic or provable fact in anything that you say…

    You’re a sad excuse for the wondrous thing that is evolution…

  59. I don’t purposely ignore comments, I’m just busy. Ignostic Atheist, All I’m saying is state your beliefs instead of stating what you’re against. Say you’re a scientist, or a humanist, or something. As I said in my original post, by calling yourself an atheist you posit the possibility of the existence of the concept of God before you negate it, which is piggybacking on the very concept you deny. This, to me, is counter-productive, for atheism, and legitimates the concept of God to some degree. BTW the term agnostic, meaning “to not know”, in Latin, is “ignoramus”. Andrew, ad hominem attacks are not arguments. DNA is a code, and it takes intelligence to produce a code. Time and random chance don’t produce code. Why do you deny science? I think you should reject your 150 year-old atomism applied to biology mythology and try science for a change 🙂

    • Ignostic Atheist says:

      Saying I’m a scientist describes how I acquire knowledge – has nothing to do with god belief. Saying I’m a humanist describes my moral foundation – nothing to do with god. What word do you suggest I use to tell you how I believe the idea of gods is ridiculous? I want you to come up with a word that will do the job, no more, no less.

      I’m noticing you slightly changed your argument. It is no longer that I posit a god by saying I’m an atheist, now it is that I posit the concept of a god. The concept of a god is nothing more than an idea, therefore invalidating your argument that claiming atheism legitimizes the existence of an actual god.

      Finally, while in latin ignoramus means “do not know”, in english the meaning is changed into “an ignorant or stupid person”. Which actually shows fairly well how you like to play fast and loose with words. I will proudly claim the latin ignoramus. You can have the english version of it.

  60. Ignostic, what I’m saying is you should stop focusing upon what you don’t believe and focus upon what you do believe. Articulate your beliefs, not what you are against. People who remain critics all their lives are boorish. If you wish to proclaim you disbelief in God, or the concept thereof, do it by stating beliefs that are far superior to belief in God. In other words, come up with a belief that blows God out of the water. Most atheist put their confidence in science, which is what I meant calling yourself a scientist. What I meant was why not portray yourself an an advocate of scientism? At least that is a positive statement of belief, and not a negative criticism of one you think inferior. I have news for you my friend: all Bible believers are not stupid, some of us are actually pretty smart! 🙂

  61. Today, play has evolved from traditional best online casinos bestonlinecasino5. An History at an On-line gambling casino is, in fact,
    straightaway loaded with at Jackpotjoy sites, Aid offered involves; game rules, coin
    size of it, win lines, incentive games, wild symbols
    and disconnected symbols.

  62. Recent anomalies that don’t fit the evolutionary paradigm:

    Scientists find early facial features on ancient fish

    “This is like finding the nose of a space shuttle in a hay wagon from the Middle Ages,” paleontologist Xiaobo Yu of Kean University in New Jersey, one of the researchers responsible for the new find, says via e-mail.”

    Scientists find early facial features on ancient fish –

    The Planthopper Nymph Has Gears

    “The planthopper nymph is a tiny insect with an incredibly fast jumping mechanism (it jumps in a few milliseconds with an acceleration of almost 400 g’s). What is perhaps most interesting are its gears that new research has uncovered. These micro marvels allow the insect to lock its legs together and synchronize their jumping motion with a precision of one three hundred thousandth of a second. You can see the video here. Truly amazing.”


    See also: The theory of evolution is gearing down for a scientific revolution –

  63. xabraxas says:

    Much ado about nothing. The Darwin fish is more playful than anything else. I don’t think anyone thinks it is supposed to be scientifically relevant. You’re overthinking it.

  64. Maxwell says:

    Perhaps. But it’s still a lot less foolish than the original.

  65. bahila says:

    Martin Heidegger, who was actually very intelligent with respect to deflating the claims of both science and religion (did not dislike Darwin, mind you…but that’s another story), would take a very different perspective on this. Religion is biased because, like philosophy until 1890, it assumed a Truth that guaranteed meaning and order. Not so.
    Desirable? Yes.
    Possible? No.
    Science starts from the claim that everything can be identified, quantified, and used. And that is valid within its parameters. But science sets its own parameters, which is the core of the problem.

  66. Thinkalittle says:

    This is NOT an Atheist symbol although Atheists may embrace. It is a symbol against the outlandish and absurd Dogma of creationists. I love how those guided by Dogma love to sidetrack the argument by accusing their detractors with the very thing that they themselves are guilty of. It is basic tactic of putting your adversary on the defensive. True science and scientists are not dogmatic in any way. When we find evidence that something we believed was true, is not true or different than we thought, we embrace it and learn something new, we DO NOT dig in our heels and start making stuff up and attacking those who made the new discovery (they may be questioned, doubted and asked to proved more evidence, but this is part of the process) so that we can just keep believing what we always believed. Nothing is ‘sacred’ when faced with new evidence. Perhaps this is too disconcerting for many and that is why they hold onto ridiculous thousands of years old fairy tales and myths. I need to add that the Darwin symbol is NOT necessarily anti-religious. There are plenty of believers of faith who accept Evolution and supports science’s continuing quest to discover and explain the origins of the Universe and life.

  67. Cunt says:

    You’re a dumb cunt

  68. Jim says:

    The fish with legs is a picture of the “missing link” that Christians assert does not exist.
    Fossils were found proving it’s existence about a decade ago.

  69. Anonymous says:

    as far as im concerned the darwin fish is our answer to the devil put dinosaurs here. everyone im sure has there own interpretation. talk about way over compicating things by self righteous douche bags lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s