Many people are atheists because they feel that science proves there is no God. I would argue the exact opposite to be true. The more research that is conducted, the more proof there is that God created this universe.
Stanley Miller's experiments which claim to have created life
Some people argue that Stanley Miller in 1953 proved that life can be created from the conditions that would have been found within the atmosphere of a young earth. This is a study which is still printed in textbooks today, but foolishly so, because there are some serious issues with it. For one, experts state that it is impossible to know exactly what those conditions were like; therefore right off the bat, when Miller created an environment to test in, there is no way of knowing that he had it absolutely correct. Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD states that the consensus within the scientific community is that the environment that Miller used was not at all like the atmosphere of early earth. On top of this, he created conditions and controlled those conditions in order to get the results that he wanted (created life). This is intelligent design! The reason why he had to do this is because the likelihood of all of the materials not only being combined, but being combined in the correct way (ratios, sequence, etc.) is insurmountable. Therefore, it is unlikely that he created accurate conditions of the atmosphere of early earth, but he also demonstrated the likelihood that a Designer was responsible for life.
Francis Crick, a biochemist and spiritual skeptic who won the nobel peace prize for his work in discovering the molecular structure of DNA admitted the following: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life apears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".
Darwin's Tree of Life and the Cambrian Explosion
Darwin argued in his theories that a tree of life can explain the evolutionary progression of life forms. This is the famous idea that organisms start out simple and evolve over time into more complex organisms. When he made these hypotheses, he knew that the evidence did not support this, but believed that science would catch up. Science has not caught up. In fact, the opposite has occurred as a result of the "Cambrian Explosion". This refers to the fossil records which show that there were simple organisms which existed long ago, but then "bam!" all of a sudden in the fossil record there are fully developed complex organisms. They appear suddenly in the fossil record and there is no evolutionary progression in the fossil records which can account for their being evolved. They simply appear fully developed in the record, and this is the exact opposite of what Darwin's theories predicted. It is the opposite of evolutionary processes because the fully developed life forms appear first, without any predecessors. A logical explanation is that they did not evolve, but that they were created fully developed.
The crazy thing is that this theory still appears in textbooks and appears as fact. Jonathan Wells makes a good point in saying that it is not a terrible thing if it appears in textbooks and taught as an interesting theory, but it is wrong for it to be taught as fact, for science has proven that it is anything but. He goes even further to say that based off of all that we know from the science community, "...it is not even a good hypothesis at this point".
Haeckel's Embryos
Another fallacy that has for years been taught in textbooks as fact is “Haeckel’s Embryos”. The story of this is that Darwin hypothesized that embryos in their early stages would show common ancestries with other organisms. The thought was that similarities in the early stages would serve as proof of such common ancestries. Haeckel, in his own studies, had similar theories, and was so confident in his theory, that he created drawings of embryos which were tailored to make embryos appear more alike than they really are. For lack of a better term, he faked the drawings. The truth of the matter with these embryos was that they were quite different between various classes of organisms in the early stages, would become somewhat more similar (but still different) in the middle stages, and then they would become very different again. The inaccuracy of Haeckel’s embryos is a well-known fact in the science community, yet for some reason it is still found in textbooks and taught as fact. These facts are frustrating. Jonathan Wells states that what has happened is that the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories – the fossil record and early embryos – served as the primary evidence for Darwin’s theories being true, but when the evidence proved to be false, scientists said, “Well we know the theory is true, so we will use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn’t fit”, but this is crazy, because then there is no evidence for the theory. None of this makes any sense at all.
Some people state that early human embryos have slits which resemble slits in early embroys of fish that eventually become gills, and therefore argue that this is proof of the fact that we have an ancestry with aquatic organisms. The fact of the matter is that they are simply not gills. If you look down toward your belly and then feel the front of your neck, you will feel flaps of skin, or ridges in the skin of your neck. This is not to say that the ridges in a human embryo are simply skin flaps, for they are more complicated than that; however, what can be said is that these ridges are not gills, and the argument of common ancestry with aquatic life due to this resemblance has been long dismissed as simply not being accurate. In fact, these ridges in fish embryos, while they do eventually become gills, are not gills at that stage. In fish they become gills, in humans they become something else. Many people will argue that because fish and human embroys share this feature at early stages, with fish eventually developing gills, that this could still be considered proof of early ancestry between humans and fish. While it could seem to be a convincing argument superficially, science has determined that it is simply not fact. Human embryos at no point have gills.
