Part 2 of the Nightline debate is up! Kirk and Ray did a Way of the Masterful job throughout the debate and at the conclusion!
I hope you will take the time to view the two videos. After you do, please share what you think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I thought that Kirk and Ray spoke very well throughout the debate, better than the Brian and Kelly overall, but I felt that that was the end of where I, understandably, would lend their side of the debate any credit.
First, what about the part where Ray and Kirk declared that they would present scientific proof of the existence of their god without relying on faith or their bible?
Much of the ensuing arguments referenced the 10 Commandments (which are found in the Christian bible), and then declared that belief was required before any evidence would present itself (the evidence requires faith to be believed, in essence).
By doing these things, did they not, then, go directly contrary to their stated purpose? I don't recall Kirk or Ray responding to that particular criticism.
Next, how is personal experience valid as a scientific proof? It made for a few nice stories from Kirk (he's a great story-teller), but if their intent was to prove the existence of their god scientifically, as they very clearly stated, personal experience has absolutely no weight as formal evidence.
Next, the "crockoduck", "bullfrog", and "sheep dog" were patently ridiculous straw man arguments that, if serious, demonstrated only that Kirk and Ray don't know nearly enough about evolution to be discussing it in such a fashion. You will never find a scientist, let alone a first-year science major that would ever suggest that such a thing was possible, or was a logical extension of evolutionary theory. They have much better answers than that. You'd be laughed out of the building for suggesting such a thing, just as Ray and Kirk should have been. If it was a joke, which they certainly didn't clarify for the audience, what was the purpose of using it?
Finally, the numerous variations of the Tornado in the Junkyard straw-man that they presented over the course of the debate further displayed their ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of what scientists actually think regarding evolutionary theory. It needs to be hammered home to all creationists that evolutionary theory does not state that evolution comes about as a result of random chance. A cursory Google search could have revealed this to them, if they had actually been interested in coming up with a valid criticism instead of stock (read as: B.S.) creationist arguments.
I'm curious to hear from you what scientific evidence you feel was provided that actually served as evidence for the existence of the Christian god (or any god, really), rather than as oft-repeated and long-refuted arguments against straw-men of evolutionary theory.
Hi Ubersehen,
Nice to see you back here! It's been a while since your last comment.
You wrote, "First, what about the part where Ray and Kirk declared that they would present scientific proof of the existence of their god without relying on faith or their bible?"
I think that the first two elements of their proof were arguments about the fact that one can see God within the evidence for Creation, and also through the fact of the conscience. The third method was the fact that Jesus was a person who existed (historical and scientific fact) and the evidence for his life, ministry, death and resurrection can be viewed as reasonable.
Of course, it takes faith to believe in him as your Lord and Savior, but the fact that he lived, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven is strong enough evidence that it can pass muster in a court of law as proof of his claims. (See Simon Greenleaf's paper.)
I see Ray and Kirk's presentation as a demonstration that we don't have to prove God. You and I and everyone knows He exists. The truth needs no defense. It is, of course, your choice to attack the reasons for belief in Him, as well as deny Him. So be it. My hope for you and for all others who currently reject Him is that you repent.
You are alive and that is a proof!
In my debates with evolutionists, I have always found them unwillingly to address what I call the "abiogenesis factor." I get the pat answer that "evolution does not deal with that."
What a cop-out!
The truth is, they just don't want to fess up to the fact that living matter does not come from non-living or dead matter!
Atheists once held claim that all matter came from nothing (Big Bang Theory) now they see that physics has disproven that by the first law of thermodynamics. Once they used the Big Bang to try and disprove the existence of God. Now they realize that's not so. The Big Bang supports the fact that the universe had a beginning. So, they have retreated to claim the universe is infinite and has no intelligence.
Don't these people understand what they are saying?
Richard Dawkins has a book out called, "The God Delusion." But this one example about scientists changing their minds about the Big Bang Theory shows how they are being deluded! Satan has them bouncing back and forth from
unscientific rhetoric to paint a picture of ignorance. No matter how fantastic a claim it is that living matter "evolved" from non-living, dead matter, they are so intent on believing their precious theory that they ignore the scientific fact that this is impossible!!
Bottom line? This is the enemy of our souls attempting to have them avoid the reality of their sin. By doing so they've moved from the realm of belief in nothing into the true belief in something called "macro-evolution."
The two facts that will always prevent me from believing in the extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution (not disputed by most ID proponents and Creationists) to macro-evolution is that living matter does not come from dead matter and there is infinite intelligence that initiated it.
You objected to the Christian's use of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are also written above the Supreme Court building. They are considered historical documents, as well as what our laws of the land are based on. I don't think that was a violation of the debate agreement.
I think that just presenting Jesus as an historical figure who walked the earth, conducted a ministry, died for the sins of men, and rose from the dead to show hope for eternity can be considered as scientific proof.
Don't we use books of history to prove the actions of other historical leaders of the past? Don't we take those, who saw the events, word for it that it actually happened?
For me, scientific "proof" is not needed. But scientific evidence helps in one's belief. There wasn't enough time for Ray and Kirk to go into detail about archaeological evidence, Biblical prophecy evidence, and Jesus' life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension evidence (including the empty tomb). All of these are evidences which can be extrapolated as proof to the believer.
I want to watch the two videos a second time. From what I recall, the point that Comfort was making with the building analogy and the painter analogy is that someone created each of them. Even though Da Vinci isn't living anymore, the evidence of his work is still here. Ray pointed out that the evidence of God's handiwork is everywhere, if one has "eyes to see and a mind that works."
The evidence of Jesus Christ is the strongest proof that Christianity is a reasonable faith.
I think that Ray and Kirk did an outstanding job. They pointed out flaws in macro-evolutionary thinking and theory, and demonstrated the need for a Designer/Creator with the examples they brought forth (Kirk's eye and DNA explanation were really good).
I think that Ray and Kirk used the "crockoduck", "bullfrog", and "sheep dog" illustrations to get people thinking about how ridiculous the assumed macro-evolutionary extrapolations done through faith by scientists really is! There is a $10,000 challenge out there for anyone to unearth a transitional living fossil. If there were any, don't you think that an evolutionist would try to claim that money?
You wrote,"Next, how is personal experience valid as a scientific proof? It made for a few nice stories from Kirk (he's a great story-teller), but if their intent was to prove the existence of their god scientifically, as they very clearly stated, personal experience has absolutely no weight as formal evidence."
God's Word tells us, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." Notice it doesn't say "...it is impossible to prove God." The entire verse goes on to explain why we must believe first:
Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV) But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Ray's comment, "Conversion produces a knowledge of God experientially" is another way of putting that verse. The reward given at conversion is given "to those who diligently seek Him."
Every Christian with whom I have spoken about their conversion experience has had a different experience from the next person (e.g. what led up to it, how it happened, and what that conversion experience has done in their life). However, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has manifested the ability in all believers to personally know Jesus Christ and understand His Word exponentially.
I don't want to get to heavy into detail here, but suffice it to say that each conversion is a personal experience because Jesus is each person's personal Savior and Lord of their life. We are all members of the church (universal believers everywhere, not a denomination or building) family and considered "His own" as children of God.
We are all God's children, however, at the point of belief and conversion, we become children of God. Why? Because if we were to look at the verse above in a positive way, it would read, "With faith, it is possible to please God." Faith is what pleases God!
Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You wrote, "I'm curious to hear from you what scientific evidence you feel was provided that actually served as evidence for the existence of the Christian god (or any god, really)..."
The scientific evidence mentioned above (creation observed, conscience, historicity and fact of Jesus) is the scientific evidence that elevates Christianity above all other faiths. However, as Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" cannot be viewed as a scientific statement, can it? However, when a Christian has a conversion experience that is as real to them as you typing on your computer today, and it gives irrefutable proof to that individual believer that his faith is solid upon the Rock of Jesus, then such proof is even more valuable (IMO) than any scientific proof that you might demand or seek.
I think that the first two elements of their proof were arguments about the fact that one can see God within the evidence for Creation
I'll go over the debate in a little more detail to show you what I mean. Comfort stated, in the opening of his speech: "I believe that the existence of God can be proven absolutely, scientifically, without even mentioning faith."
He ultimately declared that he would provide "three irrefutable evidences for God's existence." So while you stated that "I see Ray and Kirk's presentation as a demonstration that we don't have to prove God", from his own words it's clear that his intent was to prove the existence of his god. This is what I'm addressing here, and why it is important for any conclusions that are drawn from it that none of his arguments possessed any validity for the context in which this debate was set.
1. Coca Cola
Ray showed us a can of Coke, and described what everyone would agree was a ridiculous process by which it came to be. Something about finding a brown fizzy substance around which an aluminum can and some paint ultimately formed. It was pretty clear where he was going with this when he started, and more than a little insulting to the intelligence of scientists everywhere, since it was clear that he intended it to represent the absurdity of their beliefs regarding evolution. His notion was to suggest that it was impossible for this can of Coke to have simply occurred by random chance. Now please pay attention to the words I just put in italics for you. Since this can could not have arrived at its present state by random chance, it must have been created. This is supported by the fact that we know very well that the can was produced by Coca Cola Ltd. Ergo, since humanity could not have occurred by random chance, humanity must also have been created. I will state it plainly: This is merely a variation of the watchmaker analogy, which is invalid. Here's one reason why:
It is true that we as humans recognize man-made objects when we see them. Our familiarity with these things and their simplicity of design are dead give-aways. We recognize them also because we can immediately recognize what they are not. That is to say, they are not natural objects like a rock or a tree. Rocks and trees are not man-made. How, then, can we recognize whether or not they are god-made? What should we compare them to to discern one from the other? If we humans are a creation of a god, then we are also part of the spectrum of god-made things, as are our own creations. If everything is god-made, how can we tell whether anything is god-made simply by looking at it? There's nothing to compare it to to tell. As Brian asked, could you take me to your god's universe factory and show me that this is the case?
Ray went on to say:
"To believe this happened by sheer chance is to move into an intellectual-free zone."
It's because of this that I bothered with all that italicizing of "random chance" earlier. I'm going to repeat myself from my last post, and I'm going to ask you to acknowledge this just so I know that it's understood: No scientist anywhere, and certainly not any scientist working in the field of evolution research, believes that evolution occurred by random chance. To suggest it is to completely ignore what scientists actually think. This kind of argument has been being made for so long that I have a hard time believing that Comfort and Cameron aren't aware of it. They lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, despite their charismatic delivery, as a result of these kinds of obfuscating arguments.
2. Appeal to Authority
Ray follows up by quoting Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, using these two prominent historical scientific minds to lend credence to the existence of a god. Unfortunately, the particular quotations he used merely constituted an appeal to authority on Comfort's part. Appeals to authority can be valid in some circumstances, but are "a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."
3. The Watchmaker Analogy (Again)
Next, we returned to the Watchmaker Analogy, where Comfort suggested that buildings need a builder and paintings need a painter. I've already pointed out why this is an invalid argument, and there are a number of other criticisms that you can find inside a minute on Google.
Comfort followed up with a cute little buzz-concept, "all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works," which served no purpose but to insinuate that anyone who disagreed with him was both blind and stupid. Some really nasty remarks wrapped in a slick, well-spoken package.
Problems With #2 (The Human Conscience)
Comfort's next major point involved the human conscience. He opened saying that "the conscience is the impartial judge on the courtroom of the mind." He also stated that humans are the only creature on the planet that possesses a conscience. This is, of course, an uninformed position. Scientists have observed conscience-like behaviour in chimpanzees, for instance. A small point, but a fatal one to his argument. If humanity is not alone in possessing a conscience, then the argument that a unique presence of a conscience in humans proves the existence of a god is defeated. This is all aside from the fact that we don't know all the details of what the conscience is or how it works, which renders any conclusions as to its origins and universal significance completely meaningless. Unless you presuppose the Christian worldview, in which case Comfort is still defeated in his attempt to approach the issue scientifically and without faith.
"Each of us have this in-built knowledge that it's wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, to murder. The problem is our conscience is seared, that means it's lost its life on the outside. And what we need to make that conscience come back to life is the Ten Commandments."
What is a "seared conscience" and what does it look like? Scientifically, how could Comfort possibly know any of this?
Problems With #3 (The Radical Nature of Conversion)
Comfort summed up his third point with the following:
"If you realize you need God's forgiveness and you seek his forgiveness through the Gospel, God, himself, will reveal himself to you."
and
"If you don't understand the Gospel, then you won't respond to the Gospel."
Since I showed earlier that Cameron and Comfort's purpose in this debate was to prove the existence of the Christian god without the use of faith or the bible, requiring prior belief and the Ten Commandments as conditions for the argument clearly violates those terms.
I think that Ray and Kirk used the "crockoduck", "bullfrog", and "sheep dog" illustrations to get people thinking about how ridiculous the assumed macro-evolutionary extrapolations done through faith by scientists really is!
How did they do that? Cameron quite clearly stated that if macro-evolution were happening, we should expect to see these things, or something like them. There was no ambiguity in his statement. I understand that he was attempting to ridicule scientists' conclusions, but he was doing so in a fashion that displayed total ignorance of what those scientists' conclusions actually are. As a result, his argument is worthless.
In my debates with evolutionists, I have always found them unwillingly to address what I call the "abiogenesis factor." I get the pat answer that "evolution does not deal with that."
Are you sure that they were unwilling? It seems to me that they tend to answer quite honestly that we simply don't know yet. And it's true, abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution, other than that it would have preceded it. They are two separate ideas. Once life has begun, only then does evolution kick in. The conclusion many creationists tend to make is that if scientists can't explain it, it must have been their god. Surely you're aware of the term "god of the gaps." Claiming that the absence of a conclusion regarding the whats and hows of abiogenesis is indicative of creation is a false dichotomy, and as such is intellectually irresponsible. Do you see why this is the case?
Atheists once held claim that all matter came from nothing ... Don't these people understand what they are saying?
Don't you understand what you are saying? You should actually read what scientists are saying before attributing opinions to them. Further, not every atheist is well informed on the current theories regarding the origins of the universe. Their ignorance does not necessarily reflect any accuracy in your beliefs.
this one example about scientists changing their minds about the Big Bang Theory shows how they are being deluded!
Actually, any change in a given scientific theory merely shows the versatility and robustness of the scientific method. Theories are constantly revised and improved upon, always moving ever-closer to a more accurate picture of reality. Good try, though.
The two facts that will always prevent me from believing in the extrapolation of the evidence for micro-evolution ... to macro-evolution is that living matter does not come from dead matter and there is infinite intelligence that initiated it.
Scientists do not know for certain what process led to development of the first life on Earth. Not knowing the process that led to it does not mean that such a process does not exist, and certainly does not necessarily prove the existence of a creator. It is logically false and intellectually irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Do you understand why this is?
You objected to the Christian's use of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are also written above the Supreme Court building. They are considered historical documents, as well as what our laws of the land are based on. I don't think that was a violation of the debate agreement.
What a ridiculous thing to say. It doesn't matter what the Ten Commandments have been used for since the Christian bible was written, they still originate from the Christian bible! They are inescapably rooted in your faith and no degree of use in the community and country at large changes that. If I engaged in an argument and promised not to quote Shakespeare, then proceeded to recite the first few verses of "To be or not to be", I would be guilty of violating that promise, no matter how well-known or oft-employed it was in everyday life. This point was particularly ridiculous, Christine.
I think that just presenting Jesus as an historical figure who walked the earth, conducted a ministry, died for the sins of men, and rose from the dead to show hope for eternity can be considered as scientific proof.
It might be, if the very existence of Jesus wasn't such a hotly contested topic amongst historians. Kelly provided good responses to this issue. Check them out.
God's Word tells us, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." Notice it doesn't say "...it is impossible to prove God."
Right, but that's exactly what Cameron and Comfort set out to do, so this point is irrelevant. Using personal experience as scientific proof of anything ultimately proves nothing. It isn't verifiable, and so it's largely unfalsifiable, which disqualifies it as being scientific.
While I often found Brian and Kelly to be a bit sarcastic and offensive (particularly Kelly) in their style of presentation, what I found far more offensive was the level to which Kirk and Ray attempted to mock and insult the intelligence of anyone who dared believe differently than they do. Their arguments were intellectually bankrupt, and brought nothing to the debate that hadn't been refuted and laughed out of the arena years ago.
Ubeeee,
There will never be enough human proof of God. This whole concept is human inspired folly. Remember, Jesus Christ could have spinned camels on His fingers, turned goat shit into castles. Did He? no. Instead He rose from the dead, and even that will not change those who are not His children even if it happened right before thier eyes. I wonder why? You should as well, your eternal life depends upon it, for what that is worth my friend.
Christine,
tossing pearls to again? you go girl! :)
Ubersehen,
Perhaps the examples given by Ray and Kirk prove it to them, but obviously not to you. The statement that you objected to, that God can be found when one has "eyes that see and a mind that works" was not meant to be a put down leveled at non-believers, but an encouragement to see and think out of the atheistic "box," so to speak. At least that is how it seemed to me.
Perhaps the Coca-cola analogy wasn't the best choice to make his point. However, he was trying to indicate that something that is designed can clearly be recognized by us (if we have eyes to see and a mind that works).
I will attempt to address this question:
"As Brian asked, could you take me to your god's universe factory and show me that this is the case?"
I know that what I will say will be regarded as oversimplifying the question, as well as the answer. But it needs to be said to counter Brian's sarcastic and disingenuous statement.
In both the Creation and evolution hypotheses, we are comparing alternative mechanisms, of the beginning of life. One is chance and the other is design. Both require faith. Both define a religious viewpoint. But, only creation is rejected as "religion" by the adversarial evolution crowd. The religion of "random life development" called "evolution" is not. We must ask why is this so? If both are really only mechanism alternatives, then there must be a reason why creation is always rejected outright. The answer is the fear of having to answer to a God of the universe, if he is found to be real, and such emotional fear serves as a roadblock to examining the real facts on this issue. The dogmatic position of evolutionists, in fact, limits education and new knowledge on origins.
Since life had only one start, the fact that discoveries in the last few years that show evidence that doesn't support macro-evolution are being dismissed because of bias. Plain and simple! It is this obvious prejudice that is keeping the hypothesis of Intelligent Design and, of course, the "other implications" excuse to keep Creation out of the schools. I think it's tragic to use such excuses to stop children from learning the truth.
Evolution has not provided a mechanism for it's claim that in billions of years, random events miraculously piece together the first living cell.
Creation informs us that a Creator handcrafts the building blocks for life and introduces the first life-forms to planet Earth.
I know what you will say. The old "God did it" argument. Well, evolution is no better! At least we have a mechanism...God; a Creator who is outside that directs events to provide a perfectly fine-tuned planet for life. Evolution presupposes that it happened over the space of billions of years...a one chance in 10 to the 50th power, which statistically is beyond reason. The chance of winning the lottery has odds like one in tenn million. The odds of evolution are far less likely than winning thousands of lotteries. Statistically, evolution (including abiogenesis and macro-evolution) is impossible.
We are limited by dimensions that we live in. However, quantum physics finds "extra-dimensions" according to the latest breakthroughs. These findings indicates at least seven dimensions beyond time and space. Ironically, scholars also calculate at least seven extra dimensions in the Bible.
With God living outside our current dimensions of existence, it is impossible to observe any scientific laws in dimensions beyond our own. Could it be possible that miracles follow some "natural laws" in dimensions beyond time and space? Maybe they don't. But either way, a God that could create the laws in the first place would certainly know how to work "outside of" or "around" them.
You may still claim this as a false dichotomy. So be it. But if Quantum physics is correct and there are other dimensions besides the ones we live in, then this changes everything, doesn't it?
You wrote: "It seems to me that they tend to answer quite honestly that we simply don't know yet. And it's true, abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution, other than that it would have preceded it. They are two separate ideas. Once life has begun, only then does evolution kick in."
You just proved my point. Denying that one has nothing to do with the other is disingenuous, to say the least! But evolutionists get away with it! Why? Because they just can...that's why.
It's the kind of attitude that speaks volumes about their prejudice! The old excuse of "well, we don't know the mechanism that created life from non-life (yet) but we are confident that something did it, but we are sure it wasn't God because believing that is "unscientific" and the ridicule leveled at the "God did it" crowd is logical and reasonable." NOT!!
You wrote, "Scientists do not know for certain what process led to development of the first life on Earth. Not knowing the process that led to it does not mean that such a process does not exist, and certainly does not necessarily prove the existence of a creator. It is logically false and intellectually irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Do you understand why this is?"
It may not prove the existence of a creator, but neither does evolution prove any other mechanism. But they are allowed to form theories and hypotheses based on an "unknown" mechanism. What should we call that? "The evolution flying spaghetti monster of the gaps?"
About "appeals to authority." The fact is that Einstein, a scientist with a brilliant mind, tried hard to exclude creation implications (God) from his own discoveries. Einstein eventually accepted that general relativity implied a beginning (and even God).
General relativity "proves" that time, matter, and space had a beginning. Understanding such a concept is often beyond most human beings. How can we conceive of no time? No matter? No space? Like I mentioned before, it would require a perception of dimensions beyond time and space.
I realize that convincing ordinary people that this is true requires a person to accept facts suggested by evidence of things beyond what we can perceive. It is a concept that many will be slow to understand. But at this point in time, many of the most brilliant physicists, including many atheists, are trying to reconcile the implications.
I can't recall the name of the guy who credits physics for turning him from atheism to Deism. Oh yeah...Antony Flew. He lived most of his life as an atheists, but because of the evidence of new findings in the physics realm of investigation that flew (no pun!) in the face of his skepticism, he was forced to concede that he has been wrong all these years! On a side note, last I heard was that he is not a Christian (yet!) but he has had contact with IDiests in Christian forums.
Kelly was not correct in her responses about the evidence that points to the fact that Jesus Christ was, and is, a living historical figure whose crucifixion, death and resurrection to life could be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. Perhaps you didn't see my response to Juan Buhler in the previous "Debate" post. I suggest that you click on that link and read about the non-biblical, secular writings that attest to the historicity of Christ.
I'm glad that you recognized that Brian, and especially Kelly, were very mean and hostile during the entire debate. It's proof that when one is at peace with God (as Ray and Kirk obviously are) there is no need to be hostile to communicate one's worldview.
It's a miracle that last comment posted. I was having a terrible time with the other computer! I have now switched to mine and it's working better.
Ubersehen,
So that you don't have to hunt for it, I brought over a portion of my comment to Juan and the link:
When the atheists claimed that Jesus is "just a myth," they were caught in a huge lie. Their second huge lie was that there are no external, non-biblical references about Jesus' existence. That was their argument from ignorance! If you're interested, see
Christ Myth Refuted.
Perhaps the examples given by Ray and Kirk prove it to them, but obviously not to you.
But wasn't that the whole point of their being up there? Their clearly stated purpose for engaging in the debate was to prove the existence of their god without employing their bible or faith. If what the audience is then handed is easily disputed or just plain inaccurate, then that does not ultimately constitute proof. If it's scientific proof, as they claimed it would be, I should be unable to find a logical reason to disagree, no matter how much I dislike the answer. I just provided you with many logical reasons to disagree, therefore they failed.
The statement that you objected to, that God can be found when one has "eyes that see and a mind that works" was not meant to be a put down leveled at non-believers, but an encouragement to see and think out of the atheistic "box,"
I'm really not sure how this can be interpreted any other way. Ray's statement was, in essence, that all you needed to see that his arguments for the alleged design of nature and humanity implying a creator was a pair of working eyes and a functioning brain makes the insult to anyone who definitely doesn't see those things quite clear. Perhaps it was not his intent to insult anybody, since he believes his faulty logic on this to be so painfully obvious, but it is insulting nonetheless.
In both the Creation and evolution hypotheses, we are comparing alternative mechanisms, of the beginning of life. One is chance and the other is design. Both require faith. Both define a religious viewpoint.
This statement reflects a gross misunderstanding as to the processes and kinds of research that occur scientifically in the exploration of how life began. You are correct in that both biblical creation and science provide different mechanisms by which life first arose, but you are very much incorrect in equating the methods they use to come by these mechanisms. There is nothing religious about scientific calculation and speculation regarding our origins. Only a hypothesis that is constantly being analyzed and revised, always improving on itself as new information comes to light. Wikipedia says it well: "Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."
Second, you've ignored the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. They are NOT the same thing, nor are the processes used to research them. As I stated very clearly in my last post, abiogensis is a hypothesis that covers the development of life from inanimate material. Evolution covers the gradual process by which living organisms have developed since they came into existence. They are independent ideas. Please acknowledge this so that I know I am getting through.
If both are really only mechanism alternatives, then there must be a reason why creation is always rejected outright. The answer is the fear of having to answer to a God of the universe, if he is found to be real, and such emotional fear serves as a roadblock to examining the real facts on this issue.
How did you come to that conclusion? It seems to me that, again, you profoundly misunderstand, or are ignorant of, what science actually thinks. First, the scientific method prevents the pursuit of knowledge in its current form from being overrun by the dogma you accuse it of. I know your response might be "but how is evolution observable? I can't go back in time to see stuff evolve!", but that, too, would merely demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the process involved. It's easy to make these kinds of accusations when you don't actually know much about what science has uncovered so far. It might interest you to know that a god has not necessarily been ruled out of the picture, even according to Stephen Hawking, one of the world's most brilliant scientific minds, although the Young Earth scenario has most certainly been soundly disproven through a number of methods. It's certainly true that many scientists probably don't like invoking a god as an explanation, but if the evidence pointed that way, they wouldn't have much choice, would they? Given the dictates of the scientific method, it is far more likely that the main reason scientists' research hasn't concluded that the universe was created by a supernatural being 5000-6000 years ago is because the results simply haven't reflected that.
The dogmatic position of evolutionists, in fact, limits education and new knowledge on origins.
This is a dirty Creationist trick, and I resent its use. Anyone who has taken the time to find out anything about science and the way it's done knows exactly how the scientific method ultimately defuses dogma and bias among its members.
Since life had only one start, the fact that discoveries in the last few years that show evidence that doesn't support macro-evolution are being dismissed because of bias.
I'd be interested to hear about these discoveries, their scientific support, and in what way bias has caused them to be dismissed unreasonably.
It is this obvious prejudice that is keeping the hypothesis of Intelligent Design and, of course, the "other implications" excuse to keep Creation out of the schools.
It is cool and collected scientific refutation that has defeated Intelligent Design. Stubborn dogmatic sour grapes will not change this. Science, including the theory of evolution, is more than ready to change if better information comes along.
Evolution has not provided a mechanism for it's claim that in billions of years, random events miraculously piece together the first living cell.
It HAS proposed some possible explanations, and continued research will eventually show whether or not those hypotheses are valid or not. Scientific research can't lie to you and tell you that it has a definitive answer for something that it really doesn't. Ultimately, declaring that science hasn't yet definitively uncovered what caused the first instances of life on Earth doesn't mean that science can't or won't.
I know what you will say. The old "God did it" argument. Well, evolution is no better! At least we have a mechanism...God
But "God" is not currently a scientific explanation, so, for scientific purposes, it is useless. Further, you continue to demonstrate that you know very little about what evolutionary theory actually says. You continued on to recite the argument from probability against life arising, forgetting or ignoring that this argument has been soundly refuted long ago. If you check here, you'll see that your criticism of abiogenesis (as opposed to evolution) only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how biochemistry actually works.
quantum physics finds "extra-dimensions" according to the latest breakthroughs. These findings indicates at least seven dimensions beyond time and space. Ironically, scholars also calculate at least seven extra dimensions in the Bible.
The real irony here is that the same process that led to the very quantum research you've loosely cited here also adamantly supports a universe that is either somewhere on the order of 13.7 billion years old, or that has no beginning at all, both of which would directly contradict what is stated in your bible concerning the origins of the universe.
a God that could create the laws in the first place would certainly know how to work "outside of" or "around" them.
That same god could have manufactured a team of celestial pink ponies to carry him around on a flaming crucifix-laden chariot. We can talk until we're blue in the face about what your god could have done, but I'm only really interested in what we can prove he did do.
if Quantum physics is correct and there are other dimensions besides the ones we live in, then this changes everything, doesn't it?
Certainly, but in what way are things changed? Until the actual implications are known, I doubt there is any way to tell.
You just proved my point. Denying that one has nothing to do with the other is disingenuous, to say the least! But evolutionists get away with it! Why? Because they just can...that's why.
Who is saying what now? I'm not entirely clear on what "evolutionists" are getting away with, but why don't we just clear up this abiogenesis/evolution thing up as it pertains to what actual scientists are saying. This article explains it well: It's a Myth that Abiogenesis is the Same as Evolution
Can we agree now, whatever any misled Atheist or Creationist or Zoroastrian says about abiogenesis and evolution being the same process, that they are separate?
The old excuse of "well, we don't know the mechanism that created life from non-life (yet) but we are confident that something did it, but we are sure it wasn't God because believing that is "unscientific"
Of course they're confident that "something" did it. If "something" hadn't done it, we wouldn't be here to contemplate that question, but unless scientific evidence is uncovered that indicates that that something was a supernatural entity that spontaneously created life and the universe from nothing, scientists are completely justified in not considering it as an answer.
It may not prove the existence of a creator, but neither does evolution prove any other mechanism.
Who says it's trying to? The scientific consensus doesn't, that's for certain. You've either been lied to, or, more likely, simply don't have your facts on what scientists actually think straight.
But they are allowed to form theories and hypotheses based on an "unknown" mechanism. What should we call that? "The evolution flying spaghetti monster of the gaps?"
All questions of being "allowed" to do anything aside, scientists form theories and hypotheses based on what they know and have observed. The "gaps" are provisionally filled with these hypotheses to see whether they pass muster. If they do, they become theories. If they do not, they are discarded for a better one and the process is repeated. No scientific theory has been created out of information that could not be reproduced, repeated, and thoroughly verified. If there are errors in any part of the process, they can be detected, eventually, as better research comes to light, and rectified. It is a VERY transparent and accountable process.
About "appeals to authority." The fact is that Einstein, a scientist with a brilliant mind, tried hard to exclude creation implications (God) from his own discoveries.
But Einstein did not prove the existence of a god. He merely stated that he believed in one. That is the essence of an appeal to authority: claiming, fallaciously, that something is true or implied because someone in a special position said it. Further, we've come a long way from the theory of relativity. While he was a brilliant mind in his time, Einstein is most certainly not the final word on mathematics or religion today.
I can't recall the name of the guy who credits physics for turning him from atheism to Deism. Oh yeah...Antony Flew.
This personal experience is as meaningless as Kirk's for the purposes of any kind of evidence. All it shows is that Antony Flew found god in physics, nothing more.
Kelly was not correct in her responses about the evidence that points to the fact that Jesus Christ was, and is, a living historical figure whose crucifixion, death and resurrection to life could be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
If I'm not mistaken, Kelly stated that Jesus' divinity was hotly contested by historians, as was his existence as a historical figure. These points are contested separately as well as together.
I am not a historian, and know very little about the rigors of proper historical recording. So, while it is clear to me that Jesus' historical existence is hotly contested, I am not in any place to evaluate the evidence for or against it.
As far as his divinity is concerned, this is both a historical and a scientific question. Jesus' existence can be supported by historical texts, and if someone disagrees, it becomes a matter of he-said-she-said until the most reliable text is produced. Jesus' divinity can be supported somewhat by historical texts, but if someone disagrees and provides historical support as well as scientific backing, then the argument has a fair bit more weight.
I will not say, absolutely, that Jesus did not exist and was not endowed with supernatural powers, but given that we cannot reproduce it, nor have we seen any concrete examples of the supernatural apart from him in recorded history, I must remain highly skeptical.
But all this has really caused us to deviate away from the main point which was whether or not Cameron and Comfort were able to make the case for the existence of their god scientifically, without invoking faith or the Christian bible. Since science and rudimentary logic both disagree with every point they made, not to mention the fact that they violated their self-determined boundaries of leaving faith and the Christian bible out of the debate, the answer to that question is emphatically: No.
*As a footnote, it seems to me that over the course of this post you've attempted to support some of your arguments using both stripped-down and contradictory notions of quantum theory and general relativity. To better understand what is being said in these theories, their implications, and the kinds of scientific and mathematical backing they have, I recommend an old classic, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It's a tough read, but he's occasionally pretty funny and states the case for the theories you've been trying to use as clearly and concisely as is probably possible. It's well worth the read, and who knows, you might find better arguments for the existence of your god in the proven realities of what scientists and mathematicians really know about how the universe works and once worked.
Hmm. Is this discussion over, then?
Hi Ubersehen,
I'm sorry. I have been really busy with Spring cleaning and getting ready for house guests. My son's graduation from college is next Saturday.
I will get back to this comment thread asap. Should have some time tomorrow.
Again, sorry about the delay.
Christine
No worries, I was just wondering whether I should keep checking back or not. I'll keep an eye out for your response, then.
Ubersehen,
I may have to respond in snipets because you have included a lot of information and questions here.
I admit that I am not a learned scientist, but I can spot evolutionary fraud, deception, bias, propaganda, and obvious extrapolation of evidence that does not fulfill the goal of scientic evidence and/or fact.
With that said, I will proceed.
In response to my quote:
C: Perhaps the examples given by Ray and Kirk prove it to them, but obviously not to you.
You wrote:
U: "But wasn't that the whole point of their being up there? Their clearly stated purpose for engaging in the debate was to prove the existence of their god without employing their bible or faith. If what the audience is then handed is easily disputed or just plain inaccurate, then that does not ultimately constitute proof. If it's scientific proof, as they claimed it would be, I should be unable to find a logical reason to disagree, no matter how much I dislike the answer. I just provided you with many logical reasons to disagree, therefore they failed."
I think that what is bothering you is that you seem to believe that logical reasoning is an "absolute law which governs the universe" Therefore, you use your logical reasoning to disagree, and therefore, to claim that Ray and Kirk failed.
If you look deeper into the purpose(es) that Ray and Kirk were in this debate, you would understand that logic isn't the only "tool for the job," in their view. They demonstrated that there are other ways to communicate, discuss and debate. Because you don't like what they shared, you reject it. However, there were members of the audience who found that what they were sharing made sense to them. Just one example was the guy they interviewed after the debate who now questions the soundness of the extrapolation of the evidence into the "macro-evolution theory."
C: The statement that you objected to, that God can be found when one has "eyes that see and a mind that works" was not meant to be a put down leveled at non-believers, but an encouragement to see and think out of the atheistic "box,"
U: "I'm really not sure how this can be interpreted any other way. Ray's statement was, in essence, that all you needed to see that his arguments for the alleged design of nature and humanity implying a creator was a pair of working eyes and a functioning brain makes the insult to anyone who definitely doesn't see those things quite clear. Perhaps it was not his intent to insult anybody, since he believes his faulty logic on this to be so painfully obvious, but it is insulting nonetheless."
You see it as "faulty logic." Anything that I might say probably won't convince you otherwise. However, there is a way of seeing from one's mindseye that is different from physical "seeing." One example is the story about the atheist cosmonaut who, upon getting up into space made the statement, "I don't see God anywhere." Whereas, an American astronaut stated, "I see God everywhere."
Why the polar opposites of reaction?
1. The atheist obviously believes that anything not having a "natural" explanation is impossible. He rejects anything supernatural (e.g. outside time and space dimensions), so he doesn't see the order, complexity, beauty, uniqueness of planet earth, and the life-supporting advantages we have here.
2. The American astronaut, on the other hand, sees creation is obvious from observing the vast complexity of life compared to even the machine that man build to get him up into space in the first place! A God in "extra dimensions" can work miracles. The supernatural evidence is obvious to him. Breakthroughs in cosmology, including the "Big Bang," literally "prove" creation. With limitations of time, matter, and space, evolution is absolutely absurd. God was a necessity, in his mindseye.
For another thing, evolution becomes "scientifically impossible" when laws of probability are considered. Few knowledgable applied mathematicians or experts in probablity accept evolution (macro).
There is a word puzzle that reiterates this concept.
GODISNOWHERE
One can separate that to say, "GOD IS NO WHERE."
Or, one can separate that to say, "GOD IS NOW HERE."
It depends on one's perception, doesn't it?
C: In both the Creation and evolution hypotheses, we are comparing alternative mechanisms, of the beginning of life. One is chance and the other is design. Both require faith. Both define a religious viewpoint.
U: "This statement reflects a gross misunderstanding as to the processes and kinds of research that occur scientifically in the exploration of how life began. You are correct in that both biblical creation and science provide different mechanisms by which life first arose, but you are very much incorrect in equating the methods they use to come by these mechanisms. There is nothing religious about scientific calculation and speculation regarding our origins. Only a hypothesis that is constantly being analyzed and revised, always improving on itself as new information comes to light. Wikipedia says it well: "Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."
Need to return later to finish...
C: In both the Creation and evolution hypotheses, we are comparing alternative mechanisms, of the beginning of life. One is chance and the other is design. Both require faith. Both define a religious viewpoint.
U: "This statement reflects a gross misunderstanding as to the processes and kinds of research that occur scientifically in the exploration of how life began. You are correct in that both biblical creation and science provide different mechanisms by which life first arose, but you are very much incorrect in equating the methods they use to come by these mechanisms. There is nothing religious about scientific calculation and speculation regarding our origins. Only a hypothesis that is constantly being analyzed and revised, always improving on itself as new information comes to light. Wikipedia says it well: "Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."
I'd like to address that bolded part first.
You may not regard it as a kind of religion, but it indeed takes a lot of faith to continue to believe in macro-evolution when the evidence is clearly going in a different direction.
For example. Biochemistry demonstrates that evolution could not possible happen. Darwin and others did not have today's breakthrough knowledge that intricate molecular biochemical "machines" perform complex functions such as vision, blood clotting, and digestion. These machines are not simple "evolutionary steps" ion plasma, but huge leaps in molecular design - leaps that are impossible by random process. Evolutionists ignore this area. Even scientists wanting to reject creation see the impossibility of evolution. (Behe, Michael, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.)
Complexity of biochemical design is one area that now seems impossible for evolution to surmount. At the molecular level, random mutation would have had to have billions of favorable adaptations all in a specific way, all at once.
Interdependence is another insurmountable barrier for biochemical evolution. For example, an ey requires many precise, interdependent chemical systems to work. It's inconceivable that millions of changes randomly occurred instantaneously.
Another problem for evolution is DNA development steps. Even though Kirk describes it in simpler "layman's terms," (which was advantageous for those who would get bored with a scientific explanation), he brought home the points that the sequence of DNA development is not simple and it's not random.
1. Amino acids selected (must have correct orientation - right and left-handedness)
2. Life specific amino acids sorted, with incorrect ones rejected
3. Correct amino acids bonded into short chains
4. Hundreds of short chains bonded to specified length
5. Chains with "sensible" order/instructions selected (e.g. no random "noise")
Howard Morowitz (Ross, Hugh, Ph.D., The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1993.) estimated the probablity of all these steps randomly occurring for the simplest living cell to be 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power! This is like wining 1.4 million consecutive lotteries.
How likely is it to win one lottery?
Anyone who has bought lottery tickets knows...
With those kinds of scientific statistics, macro-evolution as well as abiogenesis doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on anymore! I'd say that it has devolved (pun!) into a matter of philosophy and faith! And, an impossible one at that!
C: If both are really only mechanism alternatives, then there must be a reason why creation is always rejected outright. The answer is the fear of having to answer to a God of the universe, if he is found to be real, and such emotional fear serves as a roadblock to examining the real facts on this issue.
U: How did you come to that conclusion? It seems to me that, again, you profoundly misunderstand, or are ignorant of, what science actually thinks. First, the scientific method prevents the pursuit of knowledge in its current form from being overrun by the dogma you accuse it of. I know your response might be "but how is evolution observable? I can't go back in time to see stuff evolve!", but that, too, would merely demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the process involved. It's easy to make these kinds of accusations when you don't actually know much about what science has uncovered so far. It might interest you to know that a god has not necessarily been ruled out of the picture, even according to Stephen Hawking, one of the world's most brilliant scientific minds, although the Young Earth scenario has most certainly been soundly disproven through a number of methods. It's certainly true that many scientists probably don't like invoking a god as an explanation, but if the evidence pointed that way, they wouldn't have much choice, would they? Given the dictates of the scientific method, it is far more likely that the main reason scientists' research hasn't concluded that the universe was created by a supernatural being 5000-6000 years ago is because the results simply haven't reflected that.
As far as "coming to that conclusion" is involved, it is a fact of history that the early scholars (from Moses until the 1600's), the biblical view of creation was considered fact. The Genesis account was taken very literally. However, the Genesis "Creation day" was assumed to mean a period of time, (although it also could have been a literal day). Another Bible verse tells us (paraphased here), "1,000 years is like a day, and a day like 1,000 years to the Lord."
The Bible was once the "most reliable authority" for centuries. In the U.S., it became the first school textbook.
So what happened?
Ralph O. Muncaster (former atheist/evolutionist turned Christian/Old earth creationist) gives us a brief history about the debate over creation.
He wrote:
"In the mid-1800's the advent of the theory of evolution and a coincident belief in "higher criticism" of the Bible initiated a century of doubt. Since then, modern archaeology and manuscript research have soulndly refuted "higher criticism." Likewise, scientific breaktroughs have made a mockery of evolution. Unfortunately, misconceptions still abound in textbooks because evidence refuting errors is often inadmissible" today, since it suggest "God." Hence, it has become increasingly difficult to correct mistakes."
[The old "can't let that Divine foot in the door" mantra.]
How did this come about?
Muncaster writes:
"1. Wilberforce-Huxley Debate (1860) - An unprepared orator (Wilberforce - representing the Bible) was humiliated by a skilled scientist and orator (Huxley). This, combined with Darwin's book, shaped public opinion portraing biblical scholars as prejudiced, uninformed, and ignorant.
2. Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) - The conflict between the Bible and evolution peaked with a debate between William Jennings Bryan and defense attorney Clarence Darrow. Using information we now recognize as incorrect,, Darrow forced Jennings to conclude the Genesis account could not have been literally accurate. The defeat had far-reaching impact. It created a world perception that evolution was fact, forming a great barrier between the Bible and what was perceived as science. It also fueled a dispute between Young Earth/Old Earth scholars, which still needlessly hinders coommunication of the modern scientific support of the Bible today.
3. Einstein's General Relativity (1919+) - Einstein tried hard to exclude creation implications (God) from his own discoveries. Einstein eventually accepted that general relativity implied a beginning (and even God).
4. 1990s Breakthroughs - Recent discoveries supporting creation are rapidly expanding in all scientific fields including physics, microbiology, chemistry, and anthropology."
U asked: "It's certainly true that many scientists probably don't like invoking a god as an explanation, but if the evidence pointed that way, they wouldn't have much choice, would they?
Short answer: No. Reasons? Listed above.
There is a huge battle going on to keep ANY AND ALL extra-evolutionary hypotheses and/or theories out of schools!! This is a result of prejudice, not scientific researched evidence and/or facts. If scientists authentically wanted to "follow the evidence wherever it leads," then they would not block other hypotheses from being even just discussed in classrooms. The scientific elitists were successful at this for decades. But since the 1990's and the plethora of information about Intelligent Design on the internet, students are finding out about it anyway.
I think that young minds deserve the opportunity to hear, think about, and discuss alternative theories. I personally think that once this stagnation of science called evolution-only propaganda has been dispelled with, we will get more young scientific minds sharing even more exciting thoughts, breakthroughs and evidence; just like Sam Hunt's recent theory on "God Spoke Universe into Existence.
Please excuse the typos. Neglected to proof-read!
If you look deeper into the purpose(es) that Ray and Kirk were in this debate, you would understand that logic isn't the only "tool for the job," in their view.
Given that Comfort prefaced this entire debate by declaring VERY clearly that he could prove the existence of his god "absolutely, scientifically, without even mentioning faith", it's obvious that you're only trying to make remarkably weak excuses. If someone claims to be able to prove something to someone absolutely and scientifically, is it not reasonable to expect an argument that would pass scientific muster?
IT REALLY IS THIS SIMPLE:
1. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron said very clearly that they would prove the existence of their god scientifically, without invoking faith or their bible.
2. Over the course of the debate, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron relied both on faith and their bible to support their arguments. Further, their arguments were flawed both through logical fallacy AND remarkable ignorance regarding what science actually says about evolution and the development of the universe. No scientist, or even first-year science major, would agree with any of the arguments they made over the course of the debate. There was nothing scientific about any argument they presented.
3. Therefore, according to the guidelines that they, themselves, established, they failed to make their case.
They demonstrated that there are other ways to communicate, discuss and debate.
What "other ways"? Illogical ways? Unscientific ways? Unverifiable, unfalsifiable ways?
Because you don't like what they shared, you reject it.
I didn't reject it because I didn't like it, I rejected it because it failed to meet their own criteria. I think you should perhaps consider whether or not it is you who has accepted their claims because you like what they have to say.
Further, Why are you so loathe to find fault in even a single instance of arguments that support the conclusion you want, but do so in a faulty way? Would this not strengthen the overall argument for your cause by weeding out the bad ones? That's how science works: The bad results are discarded and replaced with better ones, ever striving towards a more accurate picture of the universe.
However, there is a way of seeing from one's mindseye that is different from physical "seeing."
If that was really what Comfort was talking about, shouldn't he have said "all you need is a spiritual mindseye that can see and a brain that works"? This is far too much of a stretch to be a credible defense. Again, the guidelines established by Comfort, himself, stated that he would make his case scientifically (which requires logic).
Why the polar opposites of reaction?
1. The atheist obviously believes that anything not having a "natural" explanation is impossible...
...
2. The American astronaut, on the other hand, sees creation is obvious from observing the vast complexity of life compared to even the machine that man build to get him up into space in the first place!
Interesting how you slant the two perspective appropriately to support your personal views. It's just as likely that the atheist simply saw nothing supernatural, and reasonably concluded that he could not see a god, and that the Christian astronaut already presupposed the existence of his god and so imagined that he "saw" that god's touch on everything. Ultimately, your story proves nothing other than that people can see lots of different things in the same stuff. It doesn't speak to the accuracy of the situation in any way.
A God in "extra dimensions" can work miracles.
You're going to need to explain this one to me. As I understand it, the world's leading mathematicians don't have a particularly strong grasp on what any extra dimensions that might exist actually are or how they work. To infer that a Christian deity is hiding out in one of them is so patently ridiculous as to constitute wishful thinking. For instance, do you suspect that anything is currently living in the second dimension and that we are hidden from its sight?
Breakthroughs in cosmology, including the "Big Bang," literally "prove" creation.
What do you mean by "prove"? Does it prove it or doesn't it? And please don't tell me anything along the lines of how it proves it to you, because that, again, is not scientific in any conceivable way.
For another thing, evolution becomes "scientifically impossible" when laws of probability are considered.
Please stop using this argument. It is so patently ridiculous and outdated that it makes you look stupid to use it, even if it is meant as a deception. If you don't know how evolution works (and by using this argument you CLEARLY DON'T), you shouldn't try to prove your points by attempting to quote what your pastor or Pathlights.com or Kirk Cameron said about it. Go talk to an evolutionary biologist. Seriously. Ask him/her whether or not the probability of evolution occurring makes the theory impossible. If you have ANY interest in what science actually says about these things, you'll stop assuming that any scientist would carry on research in a subject that cannot be an accurate representation of reality and go find out why. Shame on you for repeating this again.
You may not regard it as a kind of religion, but it indeed takes a lot of faith to continue to believe in macro-evolution when the evidence is clearly going in a different direction.
It takes no faith. The conclusions that have been made regarding macro-evolution by the scientific community rest on the honesty and accountability of the scientific method. Faith is not required because the theory is constantly supported by continuous evidence in its favour and the inability of Creationist and ID critics to come up with anything scientifically viable against it. Further, Michael Behe's research, which you cited, has been soundly disproven in the scientific forum and soundly rejected in a court of law. Hugh Ross' credibility is just as bad, having been rejected by both scientists and Young Earth Creationists alike. Citing these two does nothing to support your argument.
However, since you don't actually care what scientists have to say unless it agrees with your religious views, I expect that you will continue to support Behe anyway. For the purposes of this discussion, I will simply state that I believe the scientific method to be the most apt and responsible method of finding explanations for what goes on in the universe. I believe this is the case because it proves itself thus every day, has proven itself thus for hundreds of years, and will undoubtedly continue to prove itself thus for hundreds of years to come.
Howard Morowitz (Ross, Hugh, Ph.D., The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1993.) estimated the probablity of all these steps randomly occurring for the simplest living cell to be 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power! This is like wining 1.4 million consecutive lotteries.
How fortunate for scientists that they don't actually believe that that is how it happened. Please critique the actual position of scientists, not just what a non-peer-reviewed Creationist think-tank hack has misrepresented.
As far as "coming to that conclusion" is involved, it is a fact of history that the early scholars (from Moses until the 1600's), the biblical view of creation was considered fact.
So? We're still talking about scientific evidence, right? Just because lots of people believed your bible is inerrant doesn't make it so.
"Since then, modern archaeology and manuscript research have soulndly refuted "higher criticism."
Clearly these "sound refutations" should have been sent to some scientists because they certainly haven't heard of them.
Unfortunately, misconceptions still abound in textbooks because evidence refuting errors is often inadmissible" today, since it suggest "God."
This is also untrue for a reason that needs to be strongly emphasized: This is not a matter of only the theory of evolution or Creation being true. That is a false dichotomy, for which I've already provided you a link that leads to a thorough definition and explanation of the term. Disproving the theory of evolution does not prove Christian biblical creation. It simply means that scientists have made errors in their theory that need to be revised. In truth, they find and revise errors all the time. That's how the method works... but again, the scientific method and its implications aren't actually all that important to you, since your parents, husband or pastor told you the truth already.
Using information we now recognize as incorrect,, Darrow forced Jennings to conclude the Genesis account could not have been literally accurate.
If anything was incorrect at the time, it has been revised since then. If anything, what we know now would have allowed Darrow to force Jennings to that same conclusion even more firmly.
There is a huge battle going on to keep ANY AND ALL extra-evolutionary hypotheses and/or theories out of schools!!
That is an over-generalization. There is a current conflict (not all that huge, either, since the school boards are ultimately shutting down these ideas) surrounding whether or not Intelligent Design and/or Creationism (of the Young or Old Earth variety) should be kept out of science class, as opposed to out of schools in general. If anyone can provide research that fits with the scientific method, then I would be all for allowing them to be taught in science class. Otherwise, they are more appropriate subjects for a course in religious studies. As was stated in regard to Behe's testimony in Dover, to do otherwise would be to stretch what science actually represents so that it would also accommodate ideas as thoroughly unscientific as Astrology. Surely you don't agree that Astrology should be taught in science class... and if you don't, how would you modify the definition of science such that it allows ID or Creationism but doesn't allow Astrology?
I think that young minds deserve the opportunity to hear, think about, and discuss alternative theories.
Most certainly, but they shouldn't discuss unscientific, religiously motivated theories as though they are on par with ones actively supported and employed by the scientific community.
Post a Comment