Texas education officials have agreed to grant a creation college more time to prepare recently requested information about its graduate science degree programs.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Creation/evolution
Texas Decision on Creation College's Science Degree Delayed
By
Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jan. 16 2008 04:01 PM EST
[-] Text [+]
Comments
“Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.”
Oh please, do tell!
“Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity?”
Christianity isn’t my beef, it’s religion and it’s fantasy beliefs which are largely unproven, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and otherwise non credible. I have nothing with any particular religion, my beef is with ignorance of science and how much religion happens to influence people to believe in unsubstantiated things.
“My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution.”
Yes, and as I eluded to earlier not all things that stem from evolution are eternally beneficial. Some things that occur via evolution served a purpose but now in the context in which the animal lives serves no purpose at all.
“These beliefs are in fact genetically determined.”
I don’t know about that, I think it has more to do with memes and how they are passed down generation to generation with no one bothering to even question their very purpose. We might be genetically predisposed to make up and manifest beliefs that have no evidence at all simply to explain away otherwise confounding things, but this isn’t a logical or rationale process, it’s a process stemming from recognizing patterns attributing some agent/god behind the scenes and attributed such actions to a god. In other words, sheer ignorance.
After all, why do we have every cultural that have believed in elemental gods that controlled the weather and other confounding things. It all stems from ignorance of how nature really works.
“If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it?’
I am arguing for it, read my posts and you’d realize this. I am one of the few on here that seems to even understand evolution at any length and I am trying to stem the tide of ignorance that is rampant
“A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation”
Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in an instant. To assert that the designed created something instantly is in principle the same argument as saying ‘god did it’ as even it’s not god the designer has the same skill set. This is also was Behe and other ID folk ignore paleontology fossils as evidence and only deal with biological systems.
“It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does.”
This has NOTHING to do with organisms evolving and you know, this ONLY pertains to how life initially got here and not evolution.
“I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce’
Where have you been? Scientists are nearly done in creating a new synthetic species of bacteria from scratch.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080125-artificial-life.html
www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402203.html?hpid=sec-health
“that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead.’
Again, you’re a tosser. I am NOT talking about ANYONE being put to death, I am saying in democratic consensus we should determine what we are to believe in and question even wishful propositions in afterlife that we have NO EVIDENCE OF.
“As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada.”
Well it can’t exactly contribute a whole lot if it’s continually denied any ability to do research and funding by our govt. now can’t it? You’re complaining that it hasn’t accomplished anything, but that’s not it’s fault, it’s b/c of the govt that’s in way preventing progress again.
“There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.”
Well to me it’s akin to a delusion as an adult believing in santa, so in that regard I can justify looking down on them for their beliefs in things that lack empirical backing is something to be questioned.
“It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.”
Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drugs to experience altered states of reality and so they can view the world from a different view. This is the same reason people engage in meditation and why they isolate themselves in a cave or fast without food for long periods. All of which give rise to a deeper appreciation and greater opening of the minds eye. It doesn’t’ mean one is one a 1 way conversation with god, but that the chemicals in the brain reflect reality differently.
“I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer.”
Oh, you mean like all the designed systems Behe used in his arguments in Dover? All of which were shown that natural evolution could clearly resolve. The concept of what is and isn’t ‘designed’ is largely subjective and stems directly to ones ignorance. In Behe’s case the many instances he used HE couldn’t figure it out in a natural way so he asserted it must be instantly designed. This is an argument from credulity as it assumes that not only will any current people ever figure something out, but neither will anyone in the future.
“I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public”
Look up natural selection and all the natural processes involved, there is no guiding hand there. Organic systems evolve as they respond to their habitat and the selective pressures.
“Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping”
It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion. it might fun to believe in such wishfull things as they make us feel more important and warm and fuzzy on t the inside, but this type of delussion in beliving in things for which their is non crebile evidence is like an adult believing in santa.
“so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to.”
It’s pretty easy to feel overly sappy when you sincerely consider that death on earth doesn’t matter as you’ll have another chance to see loved ones later. But is there evidence for this? Nada. Same goes for miracles. Yet, these parts of a belief system are critical to keeping it going for it one realizes miracles and after life are unsubstantiated then it’s a process of self delusion and we’re wishfully making manifestations not based on reality that run our lives and decisions and this is wrong.
“Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design”
Fine, show me the great omnibenevolent design that all theists think the universe was expressly made for us and I’ll smash them 1 by 1.
This article didn't mention what the curriculum is, it might be necessary to find out what the curriculum is, how it will be taught and what the outcomes are before commenting... This shouldn't be a dicussion between evolution and creation but rather a discussion about the class, how, what and why it is being taught.
AO: “Show me how ID is Science, how it's falsifiable, what geniune evidence it has, what predictions it has or can make. Also show how Evolution isn't falsifiable.”
Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.
You have yet to deal with the issue that I initially brought to the table. Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity? You are on Christian Post after all, and not for the news. My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution. These beliefs are in fact genetically determined. Why should you think that Christian theism is worth going against evolution to destroy? It seems rather counter-intuitive and not very altruistic coming from a so-called naturalist. Not only does it reveal your own doubts about the ability of Mother Nature to take care of herself, but it also implies a rigid contradiction of your allegiance to her super-natural selection. Why bother? What is it exactly that is eating you? If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it? Why become so disoriented that it affects your nervous system and creates animosity and hard feelings? If your car broke down on a dark street in town, and you saw five big guys coming toward you, wouldn’t it ease your mind for you to know that they were just leaving a Bible study? I mean, with all this bitterness of soul, what is it that Christians have done to you?
You may find it interesting to know, a study was conducted in 2004 by Bradford University that found that of the 32 wars in the 21st century only three were caused by religion. Just when you were about to say…
“Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand”
AO: “A guiding hand, are you kidding me?”
No I am not. A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation, but of course why on earth should I think that you had that much common sense? It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does. Allow me to take you by the hand and guide you, just because we (theists) recognize the purposeful arrangements of the parts and the fine tuning of the heart of the universe does not mean that we know how it works, other than to se the majesty of God. I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce. It is also an interesting consideration to think about the idea of the most intelligent materialists in the world spending their whole lifetime trying to prove that no intelligence made us in the first place.
AO: “What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself.”
I would say that it is atheism has attributed much to the world’s anguish and turmoil. But in any case, you still have yet to show why you think that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead. After all if religious people have a virus, the only way to get rid of it is to kill them. Of course your hatred doesn’t go that deep. You just like to antagonize people because it makes you feel superior in your unbelief. There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
AO: “Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?”
As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada. As I stated humanistic naturalism does not leave much in the way of moral standards. Hitler dehumanized the Jews before he could utilize them in his experiments.
AO: “I never said or implied that drugs or therapy would replace the spiritual nature that we all seek.”
It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.
AO: “To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.”
I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer. Or someone who
AO: “Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.”
I agree wholeheartedly, my quarrel is not against science, it is with those who presume to speak in the name of science as to the existence of Father God, in favor of Mother Nature. I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public funded class rooms. This is directly connected to philosophy and is unwarranted.
AO: “Atheism isn’t some label in which the user up and becomes more akin to animal behavior. All it refers to is if the person has a belief in god. It’s a stance that is based on evidence against theism, mostly in that religion is a man architected manifestation that was crafted from a period of ignorance of nature. In the past primitive people couldn’t possibly know certain aspects related to weather, the sun, and other elements and in their primal ignorance attributed them to the work of god(s). This evolutionary progression in the beginning had humanity bewildered as to why the rains came and went and other trivial things we know aren’t controlled by gods.”
Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design. Agnosticism would be your more tenable option. It is interesting to me how the prophets of old explain many scientific things beyond the knowledge of their day.
SP: 3. Theistic belief helps cure self-destructive characteristics such as addictions.
AO: 3. “So does some medicines, but yes inner strength and will are important and some people need a crutch it seems.”
Now let’s put it in context: You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. My assertion was that while atheists would need to turn to these things (may I point out that for some it may be just because of their meaningless existence in a materialistic universe without God), Christians find fulfillment and liberation in knowing God.
AO: “I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.”
Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping. If you are a materialist as you seem to be, the only way you and Dawkins can eliminate faith in God, is to eliminate the actual believers themselves. In the end when it comes to who decides what to do and what moral standards to adhere to, it is done by the one with the most power and this is what I meant when I said, without a moral law giver, “might makes right.” Yes, there does seem to be a logical harmony in survival of the fittest, but this is not what I was referring to.
AO: “Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.”
I agree! That is not the point, so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to. I believe it was Dawkins who actually deemed Mother Teresa as mentally ill. But then again, I guess he thinks all Christians are mentally ill. His indictment of Mother Teresa is however in accordance to how much she was willing to give, without taking back. While I am not so familiar with her that I can say what her motives were, I think I do know enough about Christian compassion to say that if there is a natural explanation as to religious belief; I maintain that atheism would not be on top of the beliefs on the ladder of progressive sociology.
Show me how ID is Science, how it's falsifiable, what geniune evidence it has, what predictions it has or can make. Also show how Evolution isn't falsifiable.
Please, lets stay on one topic at a time and adress them accordingly instead of jumping all over the place.
“If our mind was pure material, it would seem more likely that we would think in a single dimension”
Why? More speculation. Why would only a single dimension perception be more logical, we live in a 4 dimensional universe after all. In primitive tribal groups death would be something quite common and what better way to rationalize and explain it away then to delude yourself and your kids that (somehow) in the end they will be able to see you later. Quite consoling an idea, but like many other things in religion these ideas were spawned in times of utter ignorance of even the most trivial things we know today.
So why do we really doubt that Poseidon controls the seas but still find the idea of life after death possible? Easy, b/c it’s what we want to hear, it’s comforting to think and believe in. But just b/c something is comforting doesn’t mean it’s true.
“I doubt that the reason you became an atheist was because of evolution”
Well, I’ll give you some credit that is after all true. I never swayed my opinion solely on one single branch of knowledge.
“Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand”
A guiding hand, are you kidding me? Do you realize that the majority of fertilized eggs never become zygotes as some have chromosome issues.? Those that become an embryo, not all make it to the lining as some get stuck in the fallopian tubes, sometimes killing the mother (ooopps). Of those that do make it to the lining, the majority of those also don’t even become fetuses as many of those die prematurely. And then, many babies that are born are born with serious chromosome issues like having a heart on the outside of the body and tons of other abnormalities that kill the infant. Guiding hand huh?
“but I’m sure that you would be the type to attempt humiliating impressionable youths who believe in God by making an example of them in front of the class……It is a sad indictment on tax-payer funded universities”
No, that’s not for me, I don’t work in biology, but am in Science. I will inform people of the facts and leave it at that. Most people by the time they are in biology or have entered college have already considered the concept of god and already have an idea of their path. If the knowledge is revealed to them convinces them one way or the other, then perhaps their faith wasn’t that strong to begin with. Also, those that attend colleges or universities do so via their own money and they aren’t paid for publicly by taxpayers
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?
“because it is trying to disprove a purposeful creator……that this is what your science is all about; disproving God and the need for God”
Science can’t include assumed supernatural agents that can work actively in a whim, what part of that do you not understand? Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.
‘You don’t want investigation and scientific enquiry, what you want as you have said before, is to eliminate the Christian faith”
What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself. I follow the evidence where it leads and not just scientific, but archeological, historical, physiological, and many others. Collectively I see religion as a by-product of a time from when humanity was ignorant.
“It only explains variations within different species, as I noted before, evolution has little explaining power.”
What, you’re saying it can’t explain variations in species that are transitionals then? Or, you’re saying DNA coding only falls within a creationist definition of ‘kind’? Or, no let me guess, you’re going to take the token ID stance that no transitional species exist at all right?
“Changing the pigment in the wings of a moth does not account for the moth and the pigment in the first place.”
Oh, so you’re saying no transitional species exist at all then, is that really what you’re saying?
“but the philosophy de jure is materialism which cannot explain why your mind thinks the way it does’
I know, its faaaar less rationale then to attribute ones ability to think and define its own brain in a physical maner i which the brain actually is physical as opposed to solely by an invisible agent that existence for is quite swallow itself.
Religions and much of their misunderstandings about the world and Universe are self evident of people that lacked knowledge so much that they attributed anything outside their explanation as being directly related to the work of gods and demons. Is it any wonder that in every culture known we have evidence of suppositious primitive people that attributed weather and trivial acts that David Blane outdoes as ‘miracles’? Clearly the people of the past were ignorant and were easily fooled and lacked the required critical thinking and knowledge to overcome otherwise trivial questions.
Congrats on your philosophical and spiritual awaking and how it allowed you to recognize others. For some it takes life’s hardest moments for such things to emerge and be realized, personally I take it in more of a philosophical outlook that we are interconnected and will equally share our triumphed successes and downtrodden miseries and it’s in our own interest to work collectively.
My point with the Ph.D, and higher education is a valid one. The better educated one is, the more they tend to not be religious at all. Why is interesting, but personally I think those of higher education have come to see religion for what it is and don’t find solace in it as the evidence of miracles is waning, while the need for it is as well. Religion can only offer hope in the unfounded such as life after death. Propositions that when analyzed critically we have no reason to believe in even on face value. Only wishful thinking in eternal life would be enough to convince one that they wont die. Who wouldn’t want to believe in such an idea? To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.
“While you attempt to redefine terms and sidestep the evidence for a Creator, you adhere to the magic of spontaneous generation,”
I don’t define or redefine god, theists do that, it’s their idea and they choose how the concept will be defined and how skeptics will debunk it. Spontaneous generation means that it literally all came together in an instant, but that isn’t’ what scientists think at all. Rather the evidence we have shows that early nucleotides formed polynucleotide’s, which make up RNA, which then formed DNA
Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.
“Furthermore I think it can be argued that if atheism is closer to primal animal life, this would mean that theism is in fact a higher order of complexity in evolution.”
Atheism isn’t some label in which the user up and becomes more akin to animal behavior. All it refers to is if the person has a belief in god. It’s a stance that is based on evidence against theism, mostly in that religion is a man architected manifestation that was crafted from a period of ignorance of nature. In the past primitive people couldn’t possibly know certain aspects related to weather, the sun, and other elements and in their primal ignorance attributed them to the work of god(s). This evolutionary progression in the beginning had humanity bewildered as to why the rains came and went and other trivial things we know aren’t controlled by gods.
“You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc.”
I never said or implied that drugs or therapy would replace the spiritual nature that we all seek. I don’t think numerous things can replace genuine spirituality. However, certain things could and those that can cause a heightened spiritual awareness such as: meditation, sensory deprivation and being in exile/isolation or an enclosed space, and yes some drugs do cause an apparent heightened spirituality, ask the Native Americans why they are so fond of Peyote.
“If natural evolution provided a means of human fulfillment by religious belief, then how can you presume you are the one who determines what is right?”
“So we agree on at least one thing, natural evolution has no explaining power as to how or why we are here.’
Well, ok to a degree Evolution can explain how life at least got here via life adapting according to its niche habitat and how we are related to it all. But what it can’t do is explain how life originated, whether aliens left DNA here or the other methods. ‘Why we are here’ might not even be answerable
“SP: It does not negate the fact that scientific naturalists have rendered evolution unfalsifiable.”
How is evolution unfalsifiable? It can be falsified b/c it relies on actual natural evidence that can be observed, tested and predictions can be made accordingly. Want to falsify it, find evidence that is credible and testable and refutes evolution. Find Dinosaur fossils in the same layer as human ones. Find DNA evidence that implies animals don’t inherit their parents DNA, mutations and so on.
“might is right,”
No, if you read anything in biology you’d realize evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t strictly imply ‘only the strong survive’. Most times it’s organisms that operate the most ethically and in a symbiotic and altruistic nature. Life and how successful it is, is not all about dominating but many times social cohesion and teamwork.
Correction:
AO: “It’s fairly apparent, the more educated one is the less religious they are if at all.”
Kind of begs the question doesn’t it? Is this is your atheism of the gaps? It’s a double standard that is not worthy of an answer, but nevertheless lets dig in. I think these are the results of numerous issues in a person’s life. For example, I doubt that the reason you became an atheist was because of evolution. Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand. There are numerous social pressures in the scientific community; you are a great example of that. I don’t know if you are a professor, but I’m sure that you would be the type to attempt humiliating impressionable youths who believe in God by making an example of them in front of the class. It is a sad indictment on tax-payer funded universities. So, there is a combination of secular humanism being drilled into impressionable minds along with peer pressure (which includes a secular elite mindset) which can culminate into a self-sufficient pride by grad school. There is also the internal pressure of young adults who find themselves free of adult supervision where the opportunity is not only right for exploring sex, drinking, etc, but it is often encouraged by peers. Thus atheism becomes expedient in dealing with one’s conscience. There are at least a few studies on the effects society and various pressures giving shape to the atheist.
AO: “To ban stem cell research b/c a zygote according to theists has a soul, while it also has fewer cells than a fly is entirely illogical.”
You should brush up on your research. It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing. Nevertheless, it is a matter of ethics, something that you cannot account for as an atheist. It is also interesting that you gave this example when this is a perfect example of distinguishing atheism from Christianity. I know that Dawkins argues unpersuasively that Christianity is evil; when in fact once again it is Christians who are alone for all practical purposes in fighting for human dignity.
AO: “I’ve read Behe’s, Dembski’s work, I think that should suffice. In principle, ID is a god of gaps of ignorance argument.”
Why do I find that hard to believe? Numerous things that you have stated seem to reveal that you are not all that familiar with ID. I might be wrong, but of course they’re not here to defend their selves so it’s easy for you to criticize them and we’d be none the wiser.
While you attempt to redefine terms and sidestep the evidence for a Creator, you adhere to the magic of spontaneous generation, which is completely unsubstantiated. Yet it attempts an explanation as to how and why we are here, not in the mystical sense of course, because it is trying to disprove a purposeful creator. You might as well of confessed that this is what your science is all about; disproving God and the need for God, thus the necessary Being becomes the God of the gaps. You claim that you are going at this from a purely scientific point of view, yet what I see is an atheist without clothes. You don’t want investigation and scientific enquiry, what you want as you have said before, is to eliminate the Christian faith. Dawkins noted how evolution allowed him to finally be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I am glad I can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.
As you more or less admitted, the superpower of natural selection only works with what it already has available. It only explains variations within different species, as I noted before, evolution has little explaining power. Changing the pigment in the wings of a moth does not account for the moth and the pigment in the first place.
Numerous times you use words like meaning, purpose, and even presume morality. I would argue that when someone is submerged in the real world, it is not easy to break away from it. Sometimes it is a difficult thing to live out the Christian faith; I cannot imagine how difficult it would be as an atheist. Not only is it a rather shallow existence, but the philosophy de jure is materialism which cannot explain why your mind thinks the way it does, it only accounts for the mere fact that you are here: Seems rather disconnected. If our mind was pure material, it would seem more likely that we would think in a single dimension.
The most intelligent people I know including those with PhDs believe in Christ. I have heard plenty of debates over the years. The outcome of the debates is directly linked to how much knowledge one has in comparison to the other on the particular subject, which debater has more personal persuasive power and which one is most able to organize and articulate his thoughts. Whoever wins the debate doesn’t mean his view is correct. We all come to the table with our underlying presumptions.
So far, you have yet to provide good evidence that shows the need for an elimination of theism, although this has been your overarching theme you have been attempting to develop nor have you provided any evidence that it is inferior to atheism. I doubt you would have your appendix removed on the grounds of being unsure of its benefits or usefulness. We have malpractice lawsuits today to punish doctors who remove limbs and body parts unnecessarily. To say that theism is an unnecessary part of life is arrogant to say the least, assuming natural evolution is true. Furthermore I think it can be argued that if atheism is closer to primal animal life, this would mean that theism is in fact a higher order of complexity in evolution. You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. when in fact atheists need these things, because they do not have God. If natural evolution provided a means of human fulfillment by religious belief, then how can you presume you are the one who determines what is right? Again this reveals the tendency of naturalism leading towards its natural conclusion; dictatorship, might makes right, survival of the fittest. You claim that theists are ignorant, when in fact you have no basis to think that you are right in accepting atheism.
AO: “I will agree that Christians have done good throughout time, however you likely can’t name an instance where a person being Christian…was the only reason why they performed good deeds. More over, non Christians have also done both good and non good deeds, so one being Christian is hardly a remedy for all things.”
SP: I was brought up in church, but didn’t really put my whole heart into it. There was a point in time when I felt compelled to leave the tech school I was attending, quite my job, break my lease and move out in the street. It was at the conclusion of three days of anguish that God revealed Himself to me in a deeply personal and powerful way. He revealed to me my sinful nature and the depth of His grace. Where I was uninterested in learning about anything besides the next rock album, my mind now had opened up with a thirst for knowledge. As many others who have experienced God, I was no longer so self-absorbed to be blind to the needs of others. Where I would have spent my time taking from others, I now found myself giving. Whether it is giving a stranger a ride on a cold day or helping a neighbor with their rent, my experience with God is directly correlated to my redirected focus from helping myself to giving of myself. There is a difference between religion and God. I liken my conversion as to stepping out of religion and into reality. My story is not unique. There are plenty of others besides me, those who went from desperation to hope, from fear to confidence, from apathy to compassion, from recklessness to responsibility, from addiction to dignity, from class room bullies to leading prayer breakfasts, our stories are not hard to find. It was under the inspiration of the Almighty that John Wesley’s preaching directly influenced what was to be England’s most certain bloodiest revolution. William Carey as an outcast disobeyed England and under the divine direction of almighty God went to India bringing such a revolutionary change that his waves are still felt more than a century later. The stories can go and on and on, how Christ is changing lives and how they in turn touch other lives.
AO: “ID is unfalsifiable and thus isn’t science. I realize the difference between old school YEC and ID folk, however their central point appeals to god of the gaps of ignorance on what we’ve YET to fuly understand and in their credulity by fiat declares it’s proof of god.
SP: “To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable.”
AO: “ID/Creationism lack credible evidence, so it’s not solely about falsifiability.”
SP: It does not negate the fact that scientific naturalists have rendered evolution unfalsifiable.
AO: “Evolution is a model depicting HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME nothing more. It’s not meant to bring a higher understanding of our own humanness or principled ethics.”
SP: But it does speak to our humanity by its philosophical underscores.
AO: “I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.”
SP: Again, this is a moral judgment and assumes that you know what is best worth keeping. You also presume the role of a prophet of Mother Nature. You claim that you are not a nihilist, but I say it all comes through the same machinery, without God, might is right, there is a thin line of separation which is revealed by your hostility toward God and people of faith. I think it is unwarranted.
So we agree on at least one thing, natural evolution has no explaining power as to how or why we are here.
Just for good measure and so you know where I am comming from and why ID really is an arguement of the god of the gaps of ignorance, take a look at some of Tyson's work.
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
Chris,
‘I am sure that you know that time began at the big bang?”
Yes, that’s what I said. So since both space and time aka space/time began 13.7 Billion years ago there is no way of measuring the time involved before. You can’t ask how much time occurred before as the very concept of time didn’t exist yet.
“we have no reason to believe that matter did not exist…….the beginning of the big bang would have approached a singularity, not nothingness.”
Well according the 1st law of thermodynamics matter most certainly always existed, either as matter or energy or in some transitory state in between the two as that’s how it can only exist. A singularity exactly, this is what Cosmologist say. The singularity isn’t ‘nothing’ so the big bang doesn’t imply that something came from nothing either, as the singularity is certainly a something. These aren’t wild guesses, we just use what the evidence suggests.
“Please tell me where Hawking says that the laws are only able to be what they are, or even suggests.”
Read ‘The Universe in a Nutshell’. He’s not the only one either, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg and many others suggest the same thing.
“This is not what ID suggests doing, you need to study ID. I am not bothering debating something that isn't related to ID.”
I’ve read Behe’s, Dembski’s work, I think that should suffice. In principle, ID is a god of gaps of ignorance argument. It argues from a point of personal incredulity that complex things that YET aren’t understood will never be understood and this is quite arrogant. Don’t know how the sun works, don’t bother it’s too complex anyway and it’s obvious and ID agent /god did it right? That is, in a nutshell what ID is selling.
Regardless if a person is religious at all, by throwing ‘god did it’ to answer away confounding questions wont benefit anyone, they realize this and know that’s why it’s not in anyone best interest to operate in this manner.
“Science does not just recommend referring to natural explanations, it forces this…. Also, sometimes natural explanations are not so simple’
Wonder why…b/c this is the only way that things in our natural world can be observed, tested and predicted according to the scientific method. The natural answer is always easier to understand then having to infer and describe some unfalsifiable invisible agent and how it works in conjunction to achieve the answers your looking for. What can ID theory predict? That things that are utter complex must be designed? How does that benefit anyone? How can this information be used for humanity, as opposed to the derived knowledge gained through evolution?
Have you looked out stupid design? and this is a 5 min piece that runs for an hour, just to put it into perspective.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
seedplanter,
“we do not see adults such as Antony Flew becoming believers in these fairy tales as they do with theism and after years of skepticism at that.”
Well no duh pal, that’s b/c only a fool would consider santa, fairies, leprechauns and the like as even believable to begin with b/c we already know and accept they are human architected manifestations. They have no basis on REAL believability as most sane people mutually agree that indeed they don’t exist. This mutual conclusion is based on the evidence against them being real and the origins of the belief to begin with.
“while I think that natural evolution directly infers magic with its spontaneous generation.
Fine, where’s the magic? We have 1000’s of independent tests that show how natural selection is the process that guides Evolution and once again you’re attempting to equate Evolution as being how life originated, which is disingenuous and wrong. Evolution ONLY DEALS WITH LIVE EVOLVING AFTER IT ALREADY EXISTS. Thus why Darwin’s book was ORIGIN OF SPECIES and not ORIGIN OF LIFE. So there is no wand waving and no secret man hiding behind a curtain pulling strings, it all happens according to a system of processes that are entirely natural and requires no mystic supernaturalism. Just like everything else in our Universe, it all occurs naturally. So, again I ask where is the magic?
“Evolution does not exactly have its origins in science.’
Fine, then where are it’s origins then? Math? Oh, no I got it, Engineering! Get real ok.
I don’t know how many studies have been done, but they always come back showing the same results. That the higher intellectually and more academically accredited one is, the less and less religious they are if at all. The last results showed that barely 40% of all scientists even bother with the notion of a personal religious god. And when the results are looked at for those in the most elite of sciences it plummets to only 7% that believe in a personal religious god. Even having a PhD in any realm shows that it drops off. It’s fairly apparent, the more educated one is the less religious they are if at all.
ID has to stand on it’s own two feet with its own evidence and undergo peer review like all other forms of science. They couldn’t bother to do that and instead have attempted numerous times to interject ID/creationism back into the schools. And every time it’s deemed not science, and is deemed a religion as it placate ‘magic man done it’. ID isn’t barred; Behe’s articles have passed peer review so again, get real. However, his articles show his lack of evolutionary understanding and every example he’s used have been shown that natural evolution has answered already. Every instance Behe uses for IC has a natural solution that he confidently ignored on purpose.
I am not referring to materialism as inanimate objects a theists always view it, my depiction of animals and their survivability hinges off of natural selection and evolution and these are organisms so they’re not the same. You’re getting too hung up on materialism. Animals, unlike your wife’s hand bag have an innate purpose, a purpose to LIVE. They very much have a mind of their own. The only thing random in evolution is mutations, and disasters that wipe out species (meteor) everything else isn’t’ random at all.
No, atoms work according to their chemical properties that dictate how they respond and react to each other. IE how water responds when oil is poured on top of water. No, atoms don’t operate on their own. If you know anything about particles at the Quantum level they are so chaotic that predicting a single instances location and velocity in a single moment is impossible.
“Evolution is not a viable explanation in a world where even atheists cannot fit it comfortably within their humanness”
Ugggh, Evolution is a model depicting HOW LIFE CHANGES OVER TIME nothing more. It’s not meant to bring a higher understanding of our own humanness or principled ethics.
“Therefore, how is it that theism does not have its place, if for no other reason to balance out the human depravity of the next Stalin?’
Well, we could look at the inverse and reason that today religion is among the stemming threats to humanities existence. The Islamic world would love to set the world a blaze, and their dogmatic religiosity has everything to do with it. So I think you’d agree dogmatic views, theistic or not aren’t in our best interest. I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.
“This is not to suppose that all evolutionists are nihilists, but it does point out that there is no foundation within scientific naturalism for morality.”
And I think you’d agree that only a fool would take a view of Nihilism. With science we can shed light on reason based decisions., IE when a zygote really is human and know if it suffers and so on, this will allow us to make laws that are more in line with reality as opposed to banning stem cell research for no logical or reasonable basis. To ban stem cell research b/c a zygote according to theists has a soul, while it also has fewer cells than a fly is entirely illogical.
I will agree that Christians have done good throughout time, however you likely can’t name an instance where a person being Christian, or religious for that matter was the only reason why they performed good deeds. More over, non Christians have also done both good and non good deeds, so one being Christian is hardly a remedy for all things.
Seedplanter,
As you may know from Philosophy, not all ‘why type questions’ are even answerable. But if for you supplanting a question mark with ‘god did it’ works for you, then you will have fallen in the same path as Newton, Laplace and many other great scientific minds that in their furthest stretches of knowledge grasped for like straws.
“called ‘junk’ DNA.”
‘Junk DNA’ is still referred to as junk b/c of its active role relative to the rest of the Genome. Biology coined it as junk b/c certain marker sections have no active function in defining if a person has blue eyes, blonde hair and is tall.
“To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable.”
ID/Creationism lack credible evidence, so it’s not solely about falsifiability. They are equally as credible as astrology or alchemy, that’s the problem.
Show me how ID/creationism is falsifiable and you might have something. Show me how an invisible, active agent that can change test results in a whim (god) can be included into science and is falsifiable. Show me the evidence that suggests many of the precepts around creation as per religious doctrine. IE, show me evidence for a 6000 year old universe/earth.
“Even you have noted on different posts that there are many gaps”
No I haven’t. Evolution deals with life evolving and nothing more and as mentioned earlier HOW life ORIGINATED is a non-factor to life evolving after it already exists. That’s not a gap in Evolution, that’s a gap in another science, Abiogenesis.
“You seem to enjoy spitting out false premises and psuedo-challenges”
ID is just a neo creationism, nothing more. It’s a god of the gaps of ignorance argument. Sure, ID folk have scraped the 6000 year old Universe/earth as they all know there is no evidence for it and they could never even attempt to use such nonsense.
ID is unfalsifiable and thus isn’t science. I realize the difference between old school YEC and ID folk, however their central point appeals to god of the gaps of ignorance on what we’ve YET to fuly understand and in their credulity by fiat declares it’s proof of god.
"Chris, both space and time were created at the very inception of the big bang and thus there was no measurement of ‘before’ this point. So to ask what occurred prior to the big bang where no time occurred, would be like asking what god was doing for all that time prior to the big bang. It’s a philosophical question that isn’t’ logically grounded and so it can’t be answered. It’s like asking what sound does a one handed clap make"
This statement is one hand clapping, it lacks any support. I am sure that you know that time began at the big bang? The truth is, we have absolutely no idea what was before the big bang, and why it happened. For that matter, we have no reason to believe that matter did not exist, the beginning of the big bang would have approached a singularity, not nothingness. Atheists pull these wild guesses out so that they can disprove God, but they forget that they are wild guesses.
Please tell me where Hawking says that the laws are only able to be what they are, or even suggests.
"Try to think of an equation in which the scientist would answer it with ‘god did this part’ as a way to make it reconcile. It won’t happen."
This is not what ID suggests doing, you need to study ID. I am not bothering debating something that isn't related to ID.
"Of the scientists that are religions, Christian or not, they don’t infer god into their work and equations for these reasons along with Falsifiability."
Well, you defined science as only dealing with the natural, so they of course would look at the natural world and observe it as is, but they do believe that God created it. (If they are Christians they do, this is not negotiable)
"We’re not the only species on Earth to have personality, or a personal nature. Dolphins, Chimps, and various other organisms (namely higher intellect) exhibit a personal nature. Only those of lesser grey matter can’t have human like personality, similar emotions or other brain stemming characteristics."
This depends on how you define personality, but nonetheless, it doesn't solve the dilemna of personality coming from impersonal causes.
" Science prefers to use Occam’s razor of simplicity to devise how answers should be obtained and it recommends in all instances to refer to a natural explanation as opposed to elaborate, fanciful supernaturalism."
Science does not just recommend referring to natural explanations, it forces this. Also, sometimes natural explanations are not so simple, and sometimes the most straightforward and obvious answer is that intelligence is behind a certain event. ID uses the concept of Occam's razor just as well as atheists do.
Voltaire, the atheist confessed, “I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think that then I shall be robbed and cuckolded less often.”
AO: “Some consider the origins of religion stem as a natural phenomena that directly correlates to a child’s mind that isn’t able to know the consequences in certain propositions and consequently obeys everything their parents tell them as a form of self preservation.”
Your diagnosis of religion is laughable. It reveals just how desperate natural evolutionists truly are. Alister McGrath, a former atheist points out the difference with Santa Clause and the tooth fairy: we do not see adults such as Antony Flew becoming believers in these fairy tales as they do with theism and after years of skepticism at that.
AO: “If people must sincerely believe in god perhaps they should consider Deism and Pantheism [as] viable options.”
I think that pantheism is almost a given for naturalists. Often times Bob refers to creation as a form of magic, while I think that natural evolution directly infers magic with its spontaneous generation. I have stated before that the difference between creationists and evolutionists is that the first gives credit to God, while the latter gives credit to Mother Nature. I think it was Darwin’s grandfather who was propagating a pantheistic evolution. Evolution does not exactly have its origins in science. It has merely been hijacked by atheists who use it as a bargaining chip against theism. If it were not so, they would not lock out Intelligent Designers from peer review.
AO: “As mentioned before not everything that comes along via evolution is beneficial to the host replicator, or at one point were beneficial but now serve no purpose for the survivability of the species.”
It is interesting how you use the word ‘purpose’, in meaningless random materialism. How can material have a purpose? Is it possible for it to actually have a mind of its own? Did the atoms have a predetermined vision when they came together to form the necessary elements to our survival on planet earth? Did they confer with one another in as a fanciful fairytale? Evolution is not a viable explanation in a world where even atheists cannot fit it comfortably within their humanness. Atheists cannot even find words to describe the lack of their own significance without calling attention to their meaningfulness. We all have a deep spirituality whereby we can try to deny the existence of God and even go so far as to deny our own existence, but our deeper knowledge reveals otherwise when it is worked out in our words and our life.
Getting back to your argument, this only questions whether or not ‘belief’ is purposeful. Just because there have been numerous religious beliefs that have been less than admirable does not negate them as a whole. We understand the very real threat of bacteria for example, but we know that without healthy bacteria in our digestive system, it would lead to health problems. Not only that, but atheistic naturalism has been followed through with the most blatant disrespect for human life that this world has ever seen. Therefore, how is it that theism does not have its place, if for no other reason to balance out the human depravity of the next Stalin? This is not to suppose that all evolutionists are nihilists, but it does point out that there is no foundation within scientific naturalism for morality. I submit that for all practical purposes it is Christian theism that seems to hold a higher rung on the ladder of evolution, over and above atheism. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, shelters, missionaries (such as William Carey who impacted India socially, economically, educationally, scientifically, human dignity, etc, etc.), even modern science can be directly traced to the Biblical worldview. You might use different examples of individuals that seem to point to the opposite conclusion. They do not however negate the powerfully positive impact that Christian belief has had on the world.
“Creationists adhere to various timetables”
AO: “Right, we have the luxury of both YEC (6000 years old) and OEC (10,000 years old) both of which are nominally the same considering what Science suggests of a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old.”
No wonder you think I.D. is unscientific. You should consider doing a bit more research before going through all of the hassle of posting without full knowledge of what you think you are attacking. Although I’m unsure of Phillip Johnson’s position, who is not a scientist anyway, I do not know of any proponent of ID that thinks the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Hugh Ross’ creation model is 14.5 billion years old; he definitely is not the only scientist who recognizes the scientifically calculated age of the earth, through natural means.
This is boring! You seem to enjoy spitting out false premises and psuedo-challenges.
AgentOrnry,
“But why do we have such a system?”
AO: “B/c we live in a matter bound 4th dimensional Universe. Gravity behaves this way b/c of Universal Laws and forces that control matter.”
This explains the way it is, but not why it is that way.
AO: “Read up on the Scientific Method and Falsifiability and it should become clear why supernatural agents like god…can’t be assumed when attempting to acquire knowledge in Science....it negates the very process of Science enquiry.”
AO: “It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results”
The same thing can be said regarding natural evolution. If creation does account for the universe, then evolution would skew the results of many presumptuous theories, such as the previously called ‘junk’ DNA.
To reject ID or creationism purely on the grounds of falsifiability, should also result in natural evolution being dethroned as unfalsifiable. Even you have noted on different posts that there are many gaps, unexplained events and various phenomena that evolution ‘has yet’ to account for.
“Yes this "universe" is considered to have begun 14 billion years ago, but what about before that?”
Chris, both space and time were created at the very inception of the big bang and thus there was no measurement of ‘before’ this point. So to ask what occurred prior to the big bang where no time occurred, would be like asking what god was doing for all that time prior to the big bang. It’s a philosophical question that isn’t’ logically grounded and so it can’t be answered. It’s like asking what sound does a one handed clap make.
Scientists aren’t just pulling some weird hypothesis out of the air, it’s just the nature of how time and space work. If space/time doesn’t exist, then one can’t measure anything prior to its existence in any meaningful way. Thus the question of what occurred prior to it is bogus and not worth an answer as the person posing the question neglects to realize how time can’t me measured unless it exists.
“we don't even know why it "banged" in the first place.”
You’re right we don’t yet. However to supplant temporary ignorance with ‘god did it’ is most ingenious, it doesn’t advance our knowledge and no one in society benefits from that sort of answer. Conversely, when science devised the germ theory to explain illnesses and disease it became clear god or demons weren’t actively doing such things. This is why science can’t invoke supernatural agents, to do so is counter productive. It’s a shame it’s taken humanity so long to figure this out, we could have had color tv in the 1200’s. =) Worse is (no offense) when religos people tempt to retard progress for sake of religious literalism.I think the collapse of Islamic golden age and the Dark Ages are enough for us to never to consider to turn our backs on science, regardless of what comes with it. If people must sincerely believe in god perhaps they should consider Deism and Pantheism viable options.
“but science is not concerned with the nature of God”
You sure about that? We are learning more about the Universe daily and if this god exists, it surely would be the most ideal engineer; chemist, math wizard and we can learn of his work via the equations we devise to know his work. Surely if a god exists I think his language would equally consist of ‘E=mc2’ as any 10 commandments. Agree? This is what Einstein meant by ‘truly knowing the mind of god’.
“we know that personality does not come from impersonality”
We’re not the only species on Earth to have personality, or a personal nature. Dolphins, Chimps, and various other organisms (namely higher intellect) exhibit a personal nature. Only those of lesser grey matter can’t have human like personality, similar emotions or other brain stemming characteristics.
“Science doesn't have to say that there is a God, but it doesn't have to say that naturalism is the only answer.”
As a by product of falsifiability, the scientific method and others, these are the reasons why gods and supernatural agents aren’t invoked or inferred for answers to confounding questions and why above all else when attempting to answer something it must be founded in natural means. Science prefers to use Occam’s razor of simplicity to devise how answers should be obtained and it recommends in all instances to refer to a natural explanation as opposed to elaborate, fanciful supernaturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Chris333, from the books I’ve read regarding Universal Laws, mostly from Hawking and Tyson, they both support the idea that this is perhaps the only way the Universe could exist at all. Any slight tweaking on any of the 21+ constants and the main 4 Universal forces likely couldn’t arise to form a universe to begin with. The 4 forces could be different; some have at least suggested that any such changes would perhaps result in non-existence at all. Thus, the only way to know you exist is to be in one of any number of possible Universes that allows for self realization (us) of this and therefore the Anthropic principle is born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
“why can't science comment on the evidence as is.”
They do comment on the evidence as it is but they don’t invoke god into equations or issues they don’t’ YET understand as it’s an intellectual dead end. I mean, could you imagine paying scientists all this money for them to come back and tell you ‘god made it that way’. That isn’t even an answer let alone a scientific one. It’s a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘’I dunno’ of ignorance that is masked behind an agent they also can’t explain. If scientists could easily answer hard questions with ‘ god did it, or made it that way’, then they will have no reason to expand their realm of questions as in essence they will be always saying ‘god made it that way. This is principally why the Islam world took a scientific nose dive in the 1100’s, and look where they are now.
Try to think of an equation in which the scientist would answer it with ‘god did this part’ as a way to make it reconcile. It won’t happen.
Try to think of a single knowledge based discovery that was brought about that expressly inferred ‘god did this, that and that over there’ to answer something. You wont find that either.
Of the scientists that are religions, Christian or not, they don’t infer god into their work and equations for these reasons along with Falsifiability. To do so creates an intellectual dead end, it returns nothing of value, benefits no one and is disingenuous.
Seedplanter,
“Creationists adhere to various timetables”
Right, we have the luxury of both YEC (6000 years old) and OEC (10,000 years old) both of which are nominally the same considering what Science suggests of a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old.
“1. Religion is a product of evolution.
2. It is counter-productive to fight against evolution by eliminating belief in God.”
I would say considering the 3000+ recorded religion and gods its not the result of evolution per say, but rather a period of ignorance in which people would sheepishly consider others thoughts more respectable then their own, or what evidence could suggest. Take a look at how easily Mormonism, Scientology and even ‘Jedi’ as religions have recently popped up out of nowhere and it shows people by an large are suckers for particular questions and in sake of admit to ignorance they fill it with ‘god’. It seems throughout mans existence we have hammered ‘god’ into so many places of ignorance that the very concept stems from a more primal, superstitious mindset and utter lack of understanding of nature.
As mentioned before not everything that comes along via evolution is beneficial to the host replicator, or at one point were beneficial but now serve no purpose for the survivability of the species. Religion takes it’s place there with us. Some consider the origins of religion stem as a natural phenomena that directly correlates to a child’s mind that isn’t able to know the consequences in certain propositions and consequently obeys everything their parents tell them as a form of self preservation. Obviously, this sort of willingness to listen and obey 100% everything would be beneficial, however the by product is something of dogmatic nature, namely religion.
“1. We are biologically predetermined, according to natural evolution.
2. If we are predetermined, then we cannot change, but by evolution.”
I take it you haven’t heard Craig Venter and the genetic research in which we will able to refine our own DNA to eliminate many diseases and illnesses.
You are right that we would want to know the nature of this God, but science is not concerned with the nature of God, it is concerned with the nature of the universe, so naturally we would have to go elsewhere for answers to questions about the nature of God. Certainly if we believed the universe to be the product of God, we could deduce some things about God. Namely that this God must be infinite in power (or at least nearly such due to the massiveness of the universe) infinite in wisdom (due to the extreme complexity of the universe) and possibly personal, due to the fact that in the universe at least one personal being exists (namely humans) and we know that personality does not come from impersonality. But again, God Himself would be beyond the scope of scientific studies, just as morals are beyond the scope of scientific studies. So we could either search the religions that make various claims about God's interaction in the world (and through rational logical thinking attempt discerning which is correct if any) or we could simply declare agnosticism and say that even though we have some scientific evidence to believe some god did create the universe, we cannot really know anything more.
I hope this made some sense, and I hope it appeals to science in a basic way. The role of science is very important in this time, but it cannot answer all of our questions, nor should it. Science doesn't have to say that there is a God, but it doesn't have to say that naturalism is the only answer. I find it ironic that atheists use science to back up their claims but then rant and rave whenever a theist attempts to do so, it is really unfair.
Yes you are right about the 4 fundamental laws, but, if you tweak gravity just a little then you get extreme variations in the entire universe. This is highly specified. Of course we could be wrong, but our best tell us that this is the best answer as of now. Of course, I didn't mean that the fundamental laws were not necessary, as in for life to exist, I meant they weren't necessarily the way they are, they could have been different.
"Sure they could have, but as far as science can show, virtually any other different setting and the very Universe wouldn’t exist at all and would re-bang again endlessly until an eventual one we see before us."
This is shear speculation, we don't know that the universe would have re-banged endlessly, we don't even know why it "banged" in the first place.
"It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results, alter reality, and so on it negates the very process of Science enquiry. "
This wasn't what I was getting at, I was getting at the idea of, why can't science comment on the evidence as is. You have said before that many scientists do have a belief in God, and many in the Christian God. This doesn't affect their ability to interpret data, and it doesn't mean they "leave God out of the laboratory" Rather they feel that the evidence confirms their beliefs and that they are merely following the evidence. Surely you wouldn't say, "These are all smart scientists, except for their belief"
Bob is referring to ‘magic’ as to us that’s how the actions of god are eloquently described in religions. Of the things he’s responsible for in doctrines there is never it seems a how definition of his methods of creating the Universe in a 6 day span, and so on and it just says he did it and leaves it at that. Thus, it’s magic as there is no explanation and it leaves the reader/observer to wonder ‘how’ it was accomplished. The nature of god being more complex is one of the arguments logically used against his own existence as it would create an infinite regress, but I’ll save that for later.
“At the current time it appears that the chances of life coming about randomly are 0%, yet Dawkins still believes it to be true.”
Dawkins, Tyson and others that think life exists elsewhere in the Universe propose this simply on the sheer size of the Universe, the number of planets, and the time involved (13.7 billion years). Using this information they surmise that organic microbial life should be reasonable.
“Finally, it does not seem that a universe could even exist the size of our solar system, let alone function.”
Sure it could have, why not? If one posits god as the designer and this god can do anything a simple single solar system would suffice just for us, so long as this star never died out it would be gravy.
Seedplanter,
AIG, ICR, Hovind are the old YEC type, while ID is fond of those who notice what a crock a 6000 year old Universe is and realize only by creating a scientific sounding form of creationism (ID) will it be allowed into schools.
“evidence has revealed the importance of the stars and planets in the universe as a vital component to our solar system.”
It has? How so? Even so, in a hypothetical universe in which god poofed things into existence he could equally set the rules the Universe would work under and so a single star for ourselves would no doubt get the job done.
“But why do we have such a system?”
B/c we live in a matter bound 4th dimensional Universe. Gravity behaves this way b/c of Universal Laws and forces that control matter.
“Physical scientists by in large admit that the fundamental laws (such as gravity) are not necessary”
Not true. Of the 4 known forces, they aren’t ALL required for life to EXIST and FUNCTION and aren’t required. Electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force are, but Gravity and the weak nuclear forces don’t appear required for life to exist. The four forces as they are, are certainly required for the Universe to work as we see it today.
“they could have been different depending how the 'Big Bang' began”
Sure they could have, but as far as science can show, virtually any other different setting and the very Universe wouldn’t exist at all and would re-bang again endlessly until an eventual one we see before us.
“What then?”
If it can be shown that indeed a god created the universe then naturally Atheists & Theists would have to follow the evidence accordingly. We would want to know the nature of god to know which religious definitions truly conform to this nature and toss out the non -conforming ones.
“Why does science have to exclude this possibility?’
Read up on the Scientific Method and Falsifiability and it should become clear why supernatural agents like god, elves, gnomes and the like can’t be assumed when attempting to acquire knowledge in Science. It’s nothing against god per say, rather it’s the fact that to admit that an active agent can in a whim change testing results, alter reality, and so on it negates the very process of Science enquiry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
BobCoup d'état: “Biological evolution only explains the diversity of life. It doesn't explain the strange childish fantasies of some deluded brainwashed human apes. It also doesn't say anything about morality. It's just science. It's interesting that the creationists who know nothing about evolution, and who