It’s been said, “You are what you eat.” Maybe it’s also true that you are what you read and the larger society tells you what you must believe because “it’s science.”

For decades we’ve been told there is no God and we’ve evolved from the slime of a self-generating cosmos. As Carl Sagan so aptly put it, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” This is the official dogma of our nation’s schools. Mention God or post a Bible verse, and you will have the atheists breathing down your school’s legal neck threatening to sue the school and the school district to the point of insolvency if you don’t stop. And the courts have agreed.

Atheism and Darwinism, in their many incarnations, rule the day. Yes, you and I can believe what we want in the solitude our homes and churches (for now), but when it comes to government education, God is out and genes are in. You and I can “rant and rave against humanism and feminism and any other ‘ism’ on Sunday, but come Monday the children belong in school.” ((Rheta Grimsley Johnson, “‘People’ vs. fundamentalists,” The Marietta Daily Journal (September 2, 1986), 4A.)) Where young people are taught that we are nothing more than evolved carriers of genetic material.

Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has written, “We — and that means all living things — are survival machines programmed to propagate the digital database that did the programming.”1 How romantic.

We’re struck by the horror of the Las Vegas massacre, but given what we are told we must believe is true, maybe Stephen Paddock, with all his unknown troubles, decided to put what we are being told is the absolute scientific truth into practice. On what basis could any of the following atheists argue that what Stephen Paddock did was a moral wrong?

If it’s OK to blame guns for what Stephen Paddock did, then it’s OK to blame the conclusions of atheistic scientists.

According to Dawkins, the goal of genes is to survive so they can be passed on to the next generation. His book The Selfish Gene has been described as “a disturbingly persuasive essay arguing that living things are little more than corporal vessels impelled to heed the primal dictates of selfish genes hellbent on their own replication and propagation.”2*

“There are no gods, no purpose, no goal-directed forces of any kind…. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans either.” – Will Provine

“[Science has shown that] your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: ‘You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.’” – Francis Crick

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” – Richard Dawkins

“No matter how impressive the products of an algorithm [i.e., natural selection], the underlying process always consists of nothing but a series of individually mindless steps succeeding each other without the help of any intelligent supervision.” – Daniel C. Dennett

If highly paid professional athletes want to take a knee for something that’s killing our culture, take a knee for the absurdity of matter-only cosmos directed by nothing where neither good nor evil can be found.

In summary:

No God

No purpose

No goal directed forces

No ultimate foundation for ethics

No ultimate meaning to life

No free will for humans

No design

No evil

No good

We’re just a pack of neurons

And neurons just do things for no ultimate reason (they don’t need one) like shooting mindless projectiles at thousands of people listening to meaningless and mindless music.

* The four quotations are from J. Scott Turner, Purpose & Design; What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It (vii-viii).

1. River Out of Eden, 19. [↩]
2. “Revolutionary Evolutionist,” Wired Magazine (July 1, 1995). [↩]