Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 04, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Second Letter to a Secular Nation
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



On just the second page of his introduction to Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris says it is well known that “the beliefs of conservative Christians now exert an extraordinary influence over our national discourse – in our courts, in our schools, and in every branch of government.” The key word is “now,” which is inserted to create the false impression that we are a nation moving away from secularization – perhaps even towards a theocracy.

It is difficult to imagine how anyone with an IQ above room temperature could imagine that we are not becoming an increasingly secular society – witness, for example, the accelerated and largely successful efforts to remove prayer or any mention of God from the classroom. That the beliefs of conservative Christians are exerting less influence in these realms has never been a question for serious debate. The debate has always centered on the effects of these rather obvious trends.

A native of Wilmington, North Carolina recently asked me some rather pointed questions about the state of education in America today. He attended New Hanover High School several decades ago when prayer in schools was still legal. He also claims to remember when students put their shotguns in their lockers and went hunting after school. Perhaps his best question was this: “Why is that we have more violence in schools years after we took the guns out of students’ lockers? Do you think that has something to do with us taking God out of our schools, too?”

The question is not an easy one at all. It requires a thoughtful, or, one might, say, “nuanced” response.

Christians who believe that restoring prayer in schools is a “solution” to the “problem” of school violence are deluding themselves. The issue is so much more complex than that. Along with the removal of God from our schools we have also seen the removal of fathers from our households. And we do a disservice to ourselves to focus merely on what is missing from our schools and from the lives of our students. We must also look at new threats they are facing.

Just across the street from New Hanover High School there are crack houses and heroin houses. Sadly, some of them have been owned by local community “leaders” who have turned a blind eye to what their renters have been doing just a stone’s throw from our public schools and school children. Conservatives are right to point out the fact that so many of these dealers are products of a failed experiment in welfare – and this also speaks to the issue of the absence of fathers. But liberals are right to point out that Wilmington’s drug problem skyrocketed during the 1980s when conservatives were leading the so-called war on drugs.

Since both the conservative Christian and the liberal secularist have failed our nation’s children it is important for both sides to retain a bit of humility. That is why I am concerned when I read words like this in Letter to a Christian Nation: “I have set out to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.”

Harris certainly falls short of his goal when he makes statements like this:

“According to a recent Gallup poll, only 12 percent of Americans believe that life on earth has evolved though a natural process, without the interference of a deity. Thirty-one percent believe that evolution has been ‘guided by God.’ If our worldview were put to a vote, notions of ‘intelligent design’ would defeat the science of biology by nearly three to one. This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design.”

It is temping to quarrel over Harris’ use of the term “unintelligent design.” But there is a more important problem with his statement; namely, that it ignores the true reason why so many people reject the position that life on earth has evolved entirely through a natural process. That reason, of course, is a lack of fossil evidence supporting the notion that evolution explains variations between, not just within, species.

The problem is compounded by the dismissive tone of atheists like Richard Dawkins. After years of hearing that gaps in the fossil record account for the reluctance of many to embrace Darwinism he attempted an extraordinarily dishonest sleight of hand. He argued that the presence of some intermediate life forms would actually increase the number of gaps to be explained. Thus, Dawkins tried to turn the absence of evidence into support not refutation of Darwinism.

Hence, Dawkins’ position can be summarized as follows: When Darwinists are right, they are right. When Darwinists are wrong, they are still right.

Clearly, Dawkins thinks that all those who question his worldview are stupid, perhaps best referred to as “Un-brights.” Harris seems to share that view, which is reflected in the following statement:

“53 percent of Americans are actually creationists. This means that despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago.”

It is difficult to believe that Sam Harris has never heard of the distinction between “old world” and “new world” creationism. Archbishop Usher’s assertion that the world was created around 4000 B.C. is an antiquated idea from the 19th Century. Unlike the Darwinists, creationists have been willing to modify their ideas over the last century-and-a-half when the evidence calls for modification. I now believe the universe is around 14 billion years old. Like Augustine, I’m an old world creationist. Harris may not have heard of old world creationism but, hopefully, he’s heard of Augustine.

Put simply, Harris’ assertion that all Christians believe the earth is six thousand years old (and are therefore stupid) is both patently false and patently offensive. It is on par with saying that all blacks believe whites invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks. It is simply a device born of bigotry meant to breed hatred and division.

But, of course, the question of when the earth was created cannot be addressed until we answer the question of whether there was a Creator. That is really the central issue. Once it is resolved, we may argue over the issue of when the creation took place. When we get to that point, I will gladly argue with supporters of Archbishop Usher who assert that the “entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago.” Of course, no one I know actually adheres to that belief.

(Note to Sam Harris: Genesis 2:4 says “… in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The Greek word for “day” is the same word used in Genesis One. The implications for Biblical literalism are rather obvious. See also, 2 Peter 3:8).

The purpose of this series of letters is not to advocate prayer in public schools. Nor is it to advocate the teaching of creationism in public schools. But I will question why so many professors assign Sam Harris in public university classrooms.

…to be continued.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Mike swallows H.Ross's faulty eisegesis
Mike: "Like Augustine, I’m an old world creationist."

Not so; he also explicitly taught what would now be called a ‘young’ Earth. In his most famous work, City of God, he has a whole chapter, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, where he says:

‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’

Mike: "Genesis 2:4 says “… in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The Greek word for “day” is the same word used in Genesis One."

Mike, Genesis was written in *Hebrew*, not Greek. And in Genesis 2:4, it is beyom, i.e. yom with the preposition "be". It is hyperliterally translated "in the day", but it is a Hebrew idiom for "when", cf. NIV. And in Numbers 7:10-84, where there is a list of 12 days of offerings from each of the 12 tribes, and no one doubts that these are ordinary days. But at the start and finish, there is likewise a bayom that describes that entire 12-day period. Mike, you can't just blindly follow Hugh Ross and assume that the meaning of yom *with a preposition* can carry over to a completely different context, that of a numbered sequence of days.

2 Peter 3:8 says "one day is LIKE a thousand years" not IS (in contrast to Bill Clinton,
I'm sure Mike knows what the meaning of IS is). This quotes Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Would you seriously say that a shift on the night watch was thousand years?? No, the point of these passages was to contrast a short time period with a long one, showing that God is outside time!

This is OK but . . .
A better treatment is Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, who is a better scientist than Dawkins. I highly recommend this book to all interested in the intersection between science and religion.

Harris's Book and Young/Old ECreationism
Mr Harris states in his book,

"This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design.”

All I can say to someone who would make such an uninformed and foolish statement is a smilling, "Speak for yourself, Sir." Such a statement clearly reflects on his own origins as having been rooted in "Unintelligent design" and makes him an obvious example of his own hypothesis.

Another great article, Mike, except that you really do owe it to yourself to acquaint yourself with the considerable body of scientific evidence for a young earth. Many, if not perhaps even the majority of creationists from evangelical backgrounds, would hold that view. The books listing the scientific evidence supporting this view are numerous. You will find that those holding this view are not just a bunch of kooks, but many with educational or scientific credentials that will stand up against those of any you can find holding opposing views.

prayer
Social work is great stuff, but if not backed up in prayer, it won't work. Since back in the 50s when David Wilkerson began taking drug addicts off the streets, effectiveness is in the prayer.

The problem here for an atheist is that answered prayer is known as a miracle, and since those don't happen... well, atheists don't like miracles. I do.


Francis Collins is flawed
He is a dogmatic evolutionist, and his Scripture-twisting is even worse than Mike's! See a review http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5570/

The gulfs that separates us…

There is a great gulf between the worldview of Darwinism and that of Biblical Christianity.

One says that millenniums of death and suffering are the natural order and necessary for the evolution of man; the other says that death is the result of man’s sin and is a temporary state until the redemption of Christ is fully applied.

One says that life is without design and the product of the random and impersonal; the other says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by the Infinite and Personal Creator.

One says that men are nothing more than advanced apes and that truth and purpose cannot be known; the other says that we are image bearers of God who has revealed Himself to man so that we might know the truth.

Now these differences cannot be resolved nor accommodated because they involve matters of sin and redemption that speak directly to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But the difference between old and young earth creationism should not be a matter of fellowship among Christians as long as death is held as the result of sin entering into the creation that God declared ‘very good’ at its completion.[Genesis 1:31]


Death is the problem with long-age views
"But the difference between old and young earth creationism should not be a matter of fellowship among Christians as long as death is held as the result of sin entering into the creation that God declared ‘very good’ at its completion.[Genesis 1:31]"

I challenge you to produce an old-earth view that does NOT have death before Adam's fall. That's the problem: according to the dating methods accepted by Hugh Ross and his disciple Mike Adams, there are fossils of undoubted humans 195,000 old. This is well before any possible date of Adam, and of course, fossils are remains of dead things!

See also "The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe--
Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3004/

Perfect Timing!
I am a student at Auburn University and I was just assigned to read this atrocity of a letter/book. Luckily, my professor has not given me poor grades due to my distaste for the intellectual dishonesty of the book (unlike so many in the states that would do such a thing), but he considered my suggestion to read "God and the Cosmos" to be "ignorant and what [he] would expect from someone who grew up in the lap of luxury."

His reaction simply reinforces what most people know-- most atheists are just elitists who think that they, and only them, grasp the big picture. It's astounding that anyone can be that full of themselves, but there you have it.

room for differences
Now see, the author of the article acknowledges room for differences within the believing community. jono64a wants to take him to task for that.

I am a gap theorist. That just means that between the first two verses of the Bible, there is a great gap, a judgment, a terrible cataclysmic event. This allows that there is room for very, very deep time, and also it may be the point in history when the evil angel fell. Otherwise, he just pops up in Eden after a few days of God's creation.

Nevertheless, most Bible believing Christians, including myself, are agreed that the means God used to create all things was merely speaking the word.

Besides, He said He is coming back to judge all things. What authority would He have to call to account a universe which He had not created?




Gap theory puts death before sin ...
... and is indefensible from the Hebrew. http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter3.pd f Like the day-age theory promoted by Drs Ross and Adams, the gap theory was a contrivance to try to marry the Bible with long-age uniformitarian "science". That is why the Church Fathers and Reformers unaware of any gap or long creation days -- because it is not in the text itself!

Refutations of Harris
Letter to a Maladjusted Misotheist by james Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/gk/harrisletter.html -- devastatingly shows up Harris' logical fallacies, ignorance of biblical culture, and historical revisionism.

Letter from a Christian Citizen by Doug Wilson http://creationontheweb.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-51 5

It is never a good sign...
When the comments immediately begin arguing about what the author explicitly states is not the point of the article. I can hardly wait.

Most people admit the 'public' schools are horrendous. The exceptions are, of course, the schools their children attend. Why on earth would anyone want their child praying a prayer written by their local school board? I would bet most people clamoring for prayer in school don't pray at home. This explains the state of society as much as 'crack houses'. I would add, before the 'war' on drugs and the days of alcohol prohibition, drugs were legal, Coca-Cola was a better stimulant, and society was far more civil. I suppose society would thrive if the crack houses were replaced with drugstores where legal variants of opiates, barbiturates, anti-depressants, sleep-inducing tranquilizers, and a colorful cornucopia of amphetamines are distributed hourly by 'licensed' drug dealers.

Of course all social ills and bad loan decisions would disappear, if we just grasp the fact that there is no God, there is no such thing as eternal death, and we all evolved from a cosmic accident. You know, out of total chaos came order, all by itself. Imagine, no God to fear, no eternal punishment for sin and no purpose to life; sounds like, 'the recipe' for a real societal love fest.

It's the weightier matters; old-earth, young-earth, drugs, and who's really the best college football team in the country, we should be concerned with.

It couldn't possibly be too much government, tax, pork and corruption, along with too many bureaucrats, too many laws, politicians, lawyers, special interests and way way way too many social security recipients.
Give us a king!

The Christian church has abandoned its
role as our nation's moral arbiter, largely through its own actions. Those who follow the Ayatollah John Hagee not only have the spiritual discernment of a stone, but an intelligence quotient to match.

We are witnessing the death of the West as we know it, inexorably intertwined as it is with the perverse superstition known as Christianity. For the most part, Europe is twenty years ahead of us, as her people have for the most part acceded to the inevitable. By contrast, American Christians cling to their power like besotted schoolgirls, embracing an almost Islamist theocracy as their ideal state. In their religion's death throes, they crave an epic "clash of civilizations," doing everything in their power to bring one about.

In the "minds" of religious nut-jobs like Adams, Israel must exist, as it is a validation of their faith. A society grounded in Islamic, er, I mean *Christian* principles is the only one they will accept.

Things were much better way back when, when you had strong unions ensuring that the common man could share in the bounty of our once-great nation, and a wage base justifying the existence of that curious sub-species known as "homemaker."

When we were a socialist nation, we were much more social. Now, it is brutal capitalism for the poor, with blessed socialism only for the rich. Back then, only the Appalachian miner owed his soul to the company store; today, the company store (iow, Wal-Mart) has gone national. "I got friends with low wages...."

We have not so much abandoned Jesus as Jesus has abandoned us. It is, of course, what you would expect from an idol made of stone.

Or a Queen!
Don't forget operation chaos?

Adams
Speaking as a non-religious conservative, I continue to be amazed that this guy, Adams, gets a drop of publication ink. What a foolish piece of work.

The Usual Misrepresentations
First off, let me make it clear, I think Sam Harris is as wrong in his attack on religion as Mike Adams is in his attack on science. They are both sadly misinformed. As jono64a shows above, Mike doesn't even argue good religion—nor does Sam good science.

"The key word is 'now,' which is inserted to create the false impression that we are a nation moving away from secularization – perhaps even towards a theocracy."

It has more to do with the politicization of religion in the last 50 years or so. And that is interesting, since "That the beliefs of conservative Christians are exerting less influence in these realms has never been a question for serious debate."

Getting that wrong says you've got a political agenda.

"Harris certainly falls short of his goal...."

Of course he does, how is one man, or even a few, going to undo centruies of tradition?

Getting this wrong says you're insecure in your faith.

"That reason, of course, is a lack of fossil evidence supporting the notion that evolution explains variations between, not just within, species."

Wrong again. See "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" @ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .

"He argued that the presence of some intermediate life forms would actually increase the number of gaps to be explained."

And it does, every time a new transitional fossil is found, it creates two new gaps for Creationists to point to.

The Usual Misrepresentations, 2
"When Darwinists are right, they are right. When Darwinists are wrong, they are still right."

Why would it matter if a Darwinist, whatever that means, is right or wrong? Few biologists use the term Darwinist, they use the word evolutionist. What you're complaining about is when the evidence refutes a hypothesis, the theory is changed. For example, evolutionists once adhered to gradualism but now accept a form of catastophism because that is what the data supports. Why, because the theory is descriptive.

"Unlike the Darwinists [sic, evolutionists], creationists have been willing to modify their ideas over the last century-and-a-half when the evidence calls for modification."

Just showed that is wrong. And typical of creationists, Dr Henry Morris clearly states that when the data doesn't fit the Bible then the science is wrong, just the opposite of modification of ideas to fit the evidence. Why? Because creationism is prescriptive.

"But, of course, the question of when the earth was created cannot be addressed until we answer the question of whether there was a Creator."

And there in a nutshell is the difference between science and religion. Instead of asking questions and following where the evidence leads, creationists answer the question and then look for evidence to support it.

jono64a
Your exposition on Genesis was great. I wish I had that knowledge for reading the Bible. Clearly, Mike doesn't, and thus argues bad religion.

But I'm curious why you call Francis Collins, ex-head of the Human Genome Project, and a CS Lewis inspired Evangelical, a dogmatic evolutionist? The article you provide a link to states: "Collins uncritically accepts the standard evolutionary account of the cosmos, except that he suggests that the addition of God into the story may help solve additional questions about ‘what came before the Big Bang’."

Clearly he is not a Creationist. But I've heard him speak and he's clearly not dogmatic. In this respect he is like Dr Ken Miller, biologist who is also a Christian, who is dogmatic about neither.

Actually, I'd be interested in why you find Evolutionary Theory dogmatic to begin with.

The real question
The real question is not how old or young the earth is but the origin of energy.

Energy can be changed from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed therefore is always conserved. The potential of energy is less than the original state.

What is the relationship of energy and time?

Kinetic energy is motion which introduces time.

Geological time is a mixture of absolute time and relative time.

Man creates nothing but frame of reference and draws conclusions based on observation.

When was the origin of energy?
What was the source of energy?

Creationists and Evolutionists et al
I have arrived at the conclusion that one of the following explains the origin of energy.

1) energy does not exist.

2) energy spontaneously occured from nothing.

3) energy is eternal or without the element of time.

4) energy was created by intelligence.

Without mixing any of the aforementioned, cite a fifth explanation of the origin of energy.

Why..
oh, why, must the existence of a Creator be tied to the Bible?

Isn't there a single person, other than I, that entertains the possibility that there is a Creator, but that the Bible description of Creation is the imagination of some writer or writers from the long past, who didn't have any idea what he was talking about?

SamIAm
When you wrote:
Conservatives are right to point out the fact that so many of these dealers are products of a failed experiment in welfare – and this also speaks to the issue of the absence of fathers.

I know in previous articles your misogynistic beliefs blamed the women. From what I have seen, the women that I know that kicked the fathers out did so due to adultery, drug addiction and abuse. All these men had to do was straighten up their act for their kids but they were too selfish to do so.


jono64a
On the one hand, you're right when you point out that Genesis was written in Hebrew, and that the literal translation is probably closer to "When" than "in the day (meaning 1 day)." Incidentally, in the New American Bible (the US Catholic translation) the phrase is "in the time when God created..."

However, your interpretation of Peter and Psalms (A thousand years is like a day) misses one critical aspect. God is timeless. He doesn't exist in "time" as we understand it. He exists in eternity, a state where time has litterally no meaning. A "day" to an eternal being could be a thousand, a million, a billion years to a finite being like us.

My understanding (and I may be wrong, not being an expert in biblical interpretation) is that the second story of the Creation (Genesis 2:4-25) is an older story and does not break creation down day by day as does Genesis 1:1-2:4. Thus "In the time" could be interpreted as a day or something like 4 billion years.

For what it's worth, I'm a creationist. I believe God created the Universe 15 billion (or so) years ago, He created the Solar System ~5 billion years ago, and He created Man about a million years ago, after having created and destroyed -- for reasons only known to Him -- billions of species of lifeforms before we appeared. I do not believe in random evolution primarily because random evolution from a single celled organism to man has about a 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power of occuring naturally. Those are very long odds.

Mike's Point
Pascal said "Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science."

Essentially Mike's point in the article seems to be that we spend a lot of time teaching things knowleged, but very little teaching wisdom. Its all well and good to know math and science. It helps you cook up a really good batch of meth, but doesn't help you decide if that's the right thing to do or not.

Hey Doc, where are the fossils?
Call me a Doubting Thomas if you want but when I see the fossils, I will believe Mr. Darwin and his minions. These dopey professors spew their ideas to kids who are yes-ing them to death for an "A". Hopefully they walk away from the class and forget the nonsense they were taught after they get their grade. Unfortunately, some buy it.

jono
Why, by the way is 200,000 years "well before any possible date for Adam?" Do you honestly believe that the dating in the Bible is litterally accurate? Did Methuselah live to be over 960 years old?

The story of the creation (and specifically the creation of man) is most likely a parable to (a) show God's power, and (b) show that Man was created by God, and Woman was created from Man to be Man's equal and companion (hence having been taken from a rib, neither above (from the head) nor below (from the feet) man. That God created Man, and that Man sinned in defying God is the important part of the story, not when it all happened.

Death of the West?
As I read Beatie Boy's comment he appears to applaud the death of the West and its Christian Supersition. Did it ever occur to you that the death of the West might be a bad thing?

The replacement for Christianity is not rationalism, paganism and real supersition.

ulsterscott
You hit the nail on the head. Knowledge without wisdom is at best useless, and at worst catastrophically dangerous.

ulsterscott (9:10 AM)
Unfortunately, to many on the LEFT, they do NOT believe that the death of the West as we know it is a bad thing. They believe that all the oppression in the world is a result of Western (particularly Christian) values. They ignore the oppression found in many Eastern lands and secularist/atheist societies.

Thinker
I'll split the difference with you. How about we say that there WAS (is?) a Creator and that said Creator did inspire the writer(s) of Genesis to write the creation story as we see it, and that the style was written so as to make sense to a people who lacked the scientific knowledge that has been gathered over the last 3,800 years. I'm sure that if the Age of Revalation had occured now, the story of Creation would be wholely different.

Retired Geek
1) Demonstrably impossible. If there is no energy, how are we having this discussion.

2) Scientifically impossible. The laws of conservation of energy state that energy cannot be created from nothing. That's basic, eighth grade physics.

3) Theoretically plausible, I suppose, but so unlikely as to be practically impossible. Nothing in the known, physical Universe (not even the Universe itself) is infinite or eternal.

If 1, 2, and 3, are impossible, and there is no 5 (and I can't come up with one), then the only remaining explanation is 4.

Happy Jake
These folks can ignore them because they've never lived there. You want religious oppression live in a Sharia country.

Jake
I've study the Bible extensively, and read it cover to cover on more than one occasion. I can nothing I would consider God-inspired, for whatever rationalized reason.

lonestarblues
lonestarblues writes: "And there in a nutshell is the difference between science and religion. Instead of asking questions and following where the evidence leads, creationists answer the question and then look for evidence to support it."

Do you apply this same logic with theoritical science and quantum physics?

BTW, explain the origin of energy?

Natural universe
Lack of perfect knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms doesn't "prove" supernatural intervention. It simply means we don't yet know everything. Apparently some are surprised to learn this.

The fossil record clearly shows that simpler life forms preceded more complex life forms. Is it really surprising that we don't have clear record of every individual creature that ever existed? What evidence is there that evolutionary change must be gradual?

Theists will never be able to prove the supernatural by pointing to natural processes. It's like trying to prove the existence of unicorns by pointing to a mailbox. The obvious illogic of the attempt betrays an overly emotional commitment to an intellectual position.

Aquinas was wrong. Religious belief is not a matter of reason, but of faith (defined as belief in the absence of, or contrary to, reason). Theism's biggest problems are thus epistemological.

Tacitus X
Would you read my 8:15 post?

I am awaiting your response. Thank you.

some right some wrong
I actually agreed with more of Adams points than I normally do, although the things he either misunderstands or misrepresents remains high.

I guess the reason he gets more right is he is attacking Harris, and Harris tends to oversimplify things. So in the quoted passage, Harris associates the 30% who believe that God guided evolution with Intelligent Design advocates. But the Intelligent Design view says not just that there was a God behind evolution, but rather that the assumption of an Intelligent Designer is necessary for understanding evolution. There is no reason to believe that that 31% are believers in the the theory of Intelligent Design. Most likely they are religious supporters of evolution. But Harris wants to group all religious people in the uninformed camp so he classifies them wrong. (And Adams is right that there is no reason to believe the remaining group are mostly young earthers).

Where Adams goes most wrong is his response to Dawkins. Dawkins is trying to illustrate why the God in the gaps argument is so worthless. Fossil records by their nature will always be discreet rather than continuous. We have many fossils of species that represent steps between other species. But however successful evolution is, it will always be possible to demand the species between those, and when they are found, the species between those, etc. But this reveals nothing.

Adams response to this suggests that he doesn't understand the science well enough to get Dawkins' point.

Tyler
If you are still following this, what other books did you read in that class? I am just curious about the context in which Harris' book is being used.

SL to a Christian Nation?????
First, jono64a: Enough of the thump thump thump. Get your bible down, It may be contruded as a weapon.
Second Mike:, Ah what nation are you talking about. If you mean America, which segment are you referring too. The Christian Minority, the Christian Majority, those of the right Christian belief or those that you say are not. Please clarify, will you. Then get to the point of your rambling. Also Mike, last I heard America was a melting pot of religious belief, Hindu, Buddist, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Eastern Orthodox, Taoism, and oh so many more.
THIRD: Yes there is a belief that `conservative Christians' have influenced our polotics and laws. Well, it is more like someone calling themselves CCh's have, and that is a fact Jack. But most have proven that they know nothing about which they talk about, nor do they have sound ideas.
Yet I find I do agree with them about some things, like prayer in school. I say yes, a moment of prayer to ones creator is great. Just don't make it one God over another. I believe we need to say the American Pledge of Alligance in our public schools, again. I say, if you can not say it, then pay it out of your pocket and go to a private school. We did and still we said the pledge.
Those that say the earth is only so old either, A. Failed Science, B. Are as self important as tick, C. Knows exactly how long one of God's Days were, or D. Haven't gotten a clue and are BSing us all.
Why not try this, Let us seperate our Churches from our Government. Wow what a novel idea, get laws that are real and effective. Get laws that deal with people of all religions, not just one and are enacted fairly. Gods law is great, but lately most CCh's have been re-interpruting them to benefit themselves and the evil that they should be on trial for.

lonestarblues
You can't find transitional species, there aren't any. I don't mean a fossil that you say appears in the fossil record before another fully formed species. I mean there are no intermediate species. Where's the bird with the reptile lung giving way to the birds lung? Very different lungs, where is it? This applies to every species, there are no transitionals. And how do you explain clam fossils on Everest? To get way up there they should have been pulverized by the slow rising of the mountain. But there they are.
The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old. The gap theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 does explain Satan's fall as the earth was formless and void. That sounds like chaos, Satan's specialty. God is a God of order and he creates order.
Order does not come from chaos. Material cannot form itself. If it does then everything written here, by everyone, is meaningless words typed by matter. If we are just matter then the evolutionists can quit arguing because there is nothing they can do about our differences.

Evolutionary Fraud
If you have the time I highly recommend you visit:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/

An outstanding site, which shatters all the myths and arguments for the theory of evolution.

From the site...
"Randall Niles was the definitive skeptic, critic, and cynic. Forged in the fires of Georgetown, Oxford, and Berkeley, Randall's peers knew him as a "practicing atheist." Then, in what seemed to be overnight, people witnessed a dramatic shift in his life. Go on a journey with Randall as he poses questions, explores assumptions, and challenges his long-held preconceptions about life, purpose, and meaning."

Thinker
I will presume by your response to me that you are either an Atheist, and Agnostic, or of a Religion not related to Christianity or Judaism. If I'm right, I'll never change your mind on the origin of the Bible, so we'll agree to disagree on that point. If I'm wrong, then you may want to have a chat with your local Priest, Minister, or Rabbi on the theology of Scriptural Revalation.

Tacitus
What does a mailbox have to do with a unicorn?

The answer to your statement is simple. To those who believe in the existance of God, God is directly responsible for each and every natural process, both the mundane and the inexplicable.

Saying that a supernatural being is related to natural processes is nothing like saying an object is related to a clearly unrealated other object.

Given the total illogic of your comparison, I think I'll take St. Thomas's "faith-based" view over your "rational" view.

"Nuance" not required
“Why is that we have more violence in schools years after we took the guns out of students’ lockers? Do you think that has something to do with us taking God out of our schools, too?”

In the old days (e.g., when kids took shotguns to school), there was a lot of social pressure to conform. That pressure has dissipated. In fact it is inverted. Today we glorify the rogue: the most outlandish behavior is celebrated. Is it any wonder that when you glorify the rogue, the number of rogues increase?

Beastie Boy
You have scribbled some of the most ignorant comments ever made on these pages (no easy accomplishment considering some of your brethern). But you never fail to amaze....please tell us about when America was ever a "socialist nation"?

You either have no understanding of socialism or you are completely ignorant of American history....I'm guessing probably both.

...and this line, "Europe is twenty years ahead of us." (in what...self-destruction?)

How does a person like you even get created?

Mike's point is correct
I am always entertained by how critics of Mike's work argue about peripheral issues rather than the point he tries to make. Einstein said, "the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." There are no quick fixes to the moral decay of American society, our pluralism and political correctness, welfare systems and social justice by government has effectively destroyed families. The stupid arguments about creation vs. evolution is a sidebar. Even in my thinking the issue is out of the realm of science since one's theory cannot be tested. And, oh by the way, what if God created everything already old? How long was a day even before the sun and moon were created is a fruitless discussion. The fundamental issue is where the family goes the nation goes. When will people step up to their personal responsibilities, work on character, do what is right?


Independent Thinker
Independent Thinker writes:
"I've study the Bible extensively, and read it cover to cover on more than one occasion. I can nothing I would consider God-inspired, for whatever rationalized reason."

"Why..
oh, why, must the existence of a Creator be tied to the Bible?

Isn't there a single person, other than I, that entertains the possibility that there is a Creator, but that the Bible description of Creation is the imagination of some writer or writers from the long past, who didn't have any idea what he was talking about? "
-------------------------------------------------

Who is the creator you subscribe to?

Where can we learn about this creator?


Happy Jake answered
Happy Jake writes "To those who believe in the existance of God, God is directly responsible for each and every natural process, both the mundane and the inexplicable."

Under the rules of logic, any gratuitous assertion can be just as gratuitously denied. Checkmate.


Hebrew bible
Iwas led to believe that the bible was actually written in Aramec.However everyone reads what is known as the King James version.I would suspect that while rewriting the bible there were passages that didn't make sense to those people .Perhaps in their time before king James a year in our time was something like 2 or 3 hundred thousand years.

Atheists Won't Criticize Islam
Christianity is an easy target for this new crop of atheists. They know that noone is going to retaliate for objectional remarks about this religion. I'd like to see atheists start writing polemics about Islam, which is a cruel, murderous ideology that should have been reformed or abandoned centuries ago. I frankly do not believe that they have the guts to tell the truth about Islam.

On the other hand, Christianity is the bedrock of the most successful civilization in recorded history. How does atheism support our culture? Under atheism and the earth worshipper ideology we would have a celebration of abortion and, probably, euthanasia for old people. (Dr. Kevorkian would love it!)

In the ongoing battle against the murderous fanatics from Islam I choose Christianity as my bulwark. After all, it has experience fighting these camel jockeys from Hell.

Onward Christian soldiers!

Retired Geek answered
Being retired you should have plenty of time to read physicist Stephen Hawking's faascinating writing on cosmology.

In short, the negative gravitational energy in the universe exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. It's just unevenly distributed because the Big Bang was not perfectly symmetrical. Thus, there has been no violation of the principle of conservation of matter and energy.

Happy reading!

SECOND LETTER TO A CHRSTIAN NATION
Dr. Adams

Look up Exodus 20:8-10 and it states that man is to work six days and rest the seventh. This is the same word as used in Gen chapters 1 and 2.
God created in 6 literal 24 hour day. Remember it also says evening and morning-- No long periods.

Alos we must remember what it says in Hebrews 11:3. We must accept the creation by faith. Adam and eves sin, the great flood change the physical features that we only see now.

Thank you for your time.
Lboe

Old or New doesn't matter.
Young earth, old earth it doesn't matter.
The earth exists. We are here.
God does not put alot of emphasis on the age of the earth.
He does tell us about the order in which it was made.
He did give us logical and reasonable brains.
He did make us moral beings.
He does tell us and we prove it daily what a bunch of crumbs we are.
He does tell us that we are cursed.
He does tell us that the whole earth is cursed.
He does tell us that we are going to die.
He does tell us that we are not good enough to be with HIM.
What is God's central reason for speaking to us at all?

It is impossible to believe that no one created.
We know that things do not just appear.
I have enough of a hard time believing an all-powerful God can make things appear.
Don't expect me to believe nothing can make things appear.
It's impossible.
People who believe in what is impossible loose their ability to be reasonable. Read Chapter 1 in Romans. Paul will back me up on this.
Paul is much smarter than people like Beastie Boy or whatever he calls himself.

Beastie Boy isn't it obvious to you that you spew non-sense. Or do you think it's funny to sound like you live in la-la land.

schlicty
"...when I see the fossils, I will believe Mr. Darwin and his minions."

I respect that you say that you would be willing to change your beliefs in light of evidence. However, I am unconvinced that you would actually do so. I'm not exactly sure which fossils you want to see, but the fossil record abounds with evidence for evolution. There are thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils that I would be happy to show you if you truly think that you beliefs would then come in line with the evidence.

Retired Geek
You seem intelligent and civilized so I'd like to ask you a question and would appreciate the courtesy of an answer.

A man recently told me he saw a program on TV, possibly PBS, that explored the quark. He says they think it may be a sound wave of some sort.

Is this accurate and have you seen any information about this?

I enjoy keeping up with quantum physics but have been studying Polish in my spare time lately and am a bit out of the loop.

Jerseyvet
You know nothing about what you write. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have been incredibly critical of Islam. In fact, Harris has set up a fund to help provide security to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the most prominent critics of Islam.

jax33
"I was led to believe that the bible was actually written in Aramec."
Well, yes and no --- the Old Testament is mostly Hebrew and Aramaic, with a couple of chapters in Chaldean thrown in. The New Testament is in a Greek dialect called Koine, which was common in those days thanks to the Greek Empire of a couple of centuries earlier (kind of like the widespread modern use of English as a result of the British Empire).

"However everyone reads what is known as the King James version."
The KJV was for centuries the most-read English translation. It has been surpassed in the past few decades by the NIV (New International Version), which is much more readable because it is in modern-day English. It is also a superior translation in many ways because of advances in understanding of the ancient languages and cultures, and by many crucial manuscript discoveries.

"I would suspect that while rewriting the bible there were passages that didn't make sense to those people. Perhaps in their time before king James a year in our time was something like 2 or 3 hundred thousand years."
I know that by the use of the word 'rewriting' you simply meant 'translating,' and sure, there are many passages that are hard to understand. I agree with Valiant above, though (2:56AM), in that the time of creation shouldn't be a divisive dogmatic issue among those who know Christ. Sin and death entered the world, and He alone fixes that problem. Period.

As for Mike's article ... I agreed with all of it.

Mahatma-mama
There are theories that constantly change in science. e.g. there bitter arguments years ago as to whether electric current flowed positive to negative or vice versa. Then came the transistor and changed much of both sides thinking.

I haven't kept up with quantam physics so I can't speak on your inquiry. Quarks are usually accepted as being one of the parts of matter. Protons and Neutrons are made up of various quarks. Look up fundemental forces and particles.
If you are familiar with valence electrons in the atom structure: The hadron is made up of quarks and anti-quarks and has valence quarks.

There are numerous theories posited since the sixties, my theory is that science is a long way from solving the structure.

Light is another issue that has transmission theories yet to be fully solved.

I have spent most of my time trying to keep up with OOP, relational databases and so on in computer programming.

I LOVE religious reasoning....
There is a "gap" in the "fossil record" in the evolutionary ascent of man, therefeore.....ERGO....Jesus was actually born of a virgin birth!

The more supernatural of the theists will tell you it's either one or the other!...either evolution or a virgin Jesus who will mystically return to earth in a "Rapture"!

Note to supernaturalists: Having no "god" is ground zero, neutral ground, rational thinking. Bringing super- (or supra-) naturalism into the conversation (parting of seas, walking on water, wine from water, water from rocks, magical "2nd Comings") is the aberration. Atheists have no need to justify their beliefs. The burden of proof is on the theists (muslim, christian, buddhist, scientologist). Since the theists have no "proof" one or all the gods actually exist, we get the "faith" argument (you gotta have faith!).

I'd like wo wish everybody a beautiful day as we remember MLK on the 40th anniversary of his assassination.


Tacitus X
I have read Hawking and I find your answer non sequitur to what is the origin of energy?

Mahatma-mama
I meant to add that most of my knowledge of quantum physics came from a friend who helped perfect the electron microscope. We went fishing quite a lot together and he talked constantly about the various theories and then gave me biology lessons while cleaning our catch (not real appetizing). He did have redeeming qualities and I bored him with my theories about the absence of time and what natural law would be like without it.

During these vacations our wives avoided us like the plague. They usually ended our chatter with "when it comes to vacations you guys just don't get it do you?"

MikeH
"There are thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils that I would be happy to show you."

Really? You're going to be more famous than Darwin and Einstein put together!

"After over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

What is the picture which the fossils have given us?...The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."
Luther D. Sutherland, "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems"

Will

The Truth is sitting right in front of your face.
"You either got faith or you got unbelief and There ain't no neutral ground." (Bob Dylan)
Do you know why God lowered Himself?
Do you know how rotten to the core you are?
Do you know why He had to be born of a virgin?
I'll give you a hint. The Sin of Adam is passed down generation after generation, through something males have.
Who says atheists don't have to prove God doesn't exist.
Since you are expecting me to believe that things just pop into existance I think you should have to prove that to me.

geek, will
RG: "I have spent most of my time trying to keep up with OOP, relational databases and so on in computer programming."
Welcome to the club! Not retired, but doing full-time Java development for a major bank. OO + relational is the platform of choice for the industry these days.

Will: "Having no "god" is ground zero, neutral ground, rational thinking ... Atheists have no need to justify their beliefs."
Only if we presuppose that God does not exist. Why is the probability structure of atheism the default position?
In other words, what you are stating is known as methodological naturalism, and in and of itself it is no more innately logical than theism.
God is not bound by the characteristics of His creation, any more than I can't count past 1,000 because I write a program that rejects numbers of that size.

A modest question...
How come nobody can make money applying creationism?

Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Mike H
I'm sure I'll never change your mind, but I believe the fossil is referred to as "The Missing Link". Thank you Ice Dog for your reply to the Darwin minion.

SECOND LETTER TO A CHRSTIAN NATION
DR. ADAMS
A third thought is that there was no death in the universe until Adam and Eve sinned. They brought on death. Therefore no gap theory.

All the fossils are from the flood of Noah's time

Lboe

Retired Geek
Thank you for your response. You're probably correct in asserting that a number of theories would be afloat concerning these elemental structures given their unknowns.

When I have time I'll have to pursue the matter(very bad pun intended).

BTW I think I would have enjoyed your vacation musings.

One of my sons is getting his Master's in Philosophy. His thesis is on reconciling Space, Relativity, and the Transcendental Aesthetic. I've seen the outline and look forward to reading the paper.

Ray Ingles
I will give you an earth age that you like whatever that might be (yesterday -> several trillion years).

I will posit you a modest question.

What, where, when is the origin of energy?

john Taylor
But by your logic, the muslim god is every bit as "real" as the christian god. By your reasoning, if I picture the "creator" as not having a vested interest in the human race (not "listening" to millions of prayers or "answering" them, etc), than that "God" is OK too?

I read a play a few months ago ("Corpus Christi") where Jesus is presented as a gay man, with gay disciples. In your view, this is OK too? Just as long as I keep open-minded to a general "God"? Or in your view, is evangelical christianity & a belief in the literal word of the Jewish Bibles (parts 1 & 2), the only "Way"?

Icedog
"Really? You're going to be more famous than Darwin and Einstein put together!"

Would that it were so, but unfortunately these transitional fossils are already known to the people who study them. It seems that people who would rather read creationist propaganda are the ones that don't know about them, and I don't think I'll be earning any fame from them. Darwin, one of the greatest thinkers in history, is continuously derided with ad hominum attacks from them.

Response to retired Geek
Retired Geek writes "I have read Hawking and I find your answer non sequitur to what is the origin of energy?"

The problem is that your 8:15 post did not actually ask a specific question, so I assumed that was the idea you were slyly approaching.

Your question above is premised on the notion that energy (and the universe as a whole) has an "origin." Existence as a whole does not require a causal explanation. The concept of "causation" is meaningless outside of existence since it requires entities that act.

Similarly, prior to the Big Bang, there was no "time" since time is a measurement of the relative motion of entities. Without entities, there is no "time."

Given your choices, number 3 makes the most sense with the above caveats, and at least has the virtue of being consistent with the principle that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

What's your solution? I expect it's a doozy!


John Taylor
Thank you for your knowledegable reply I couldn't get my head to think translation (senior moment).Speaking of translating,I remember back in the seventies on the Johnny Carson show they told a joke in english first to a frencman, then to a german, then to a Jew.When it was repeated in english you couldn't make any sense of it.That is why I question translating.

will
---
But by your logic, the muslim god is every bit as "real" as the christian god. By your reasoning, if I picture the "creator" as not having a vested interest in the human race (not "listening" to millions of prayers or "answering" them, etc), than that "God" is OK too?
I read a play a few months ago ("Corpus Christi") where Jesus is presented as a gay man, with gay disciples. In your view, this is OK too? Just as long as I keep open-minded to a general "God"? Or in your view, is evangelical christianity & a belief in the literal word of the Jewish Bibles (parts 1 & 2), the only "Way"?
---
No to all of the above except the last, because all of these would be logically inconsistent, and God is a God of logic and order.
Islam is not internally consistent (don't have time to go into THAT one right now, but Islam is hopelessly logically flawed).
Jesus could not have been gay because that would be inconsistent with the morality of the Law of Moses, which as the Messiah and the Son of God, He came to fulfill.

Yes to the last question, kind of: The only way is Jesus. All other religions say, "that's the way, go do that"; Jesus says, "I am the way, come to Me" (John 14:6).
This doesn't in any way lead to the "you must be like ME because I'M right" position. We are both in the image of God, we have both trashed that image by deliberately sinning, and we have both been bought by the sacrifice of Jesus. The only difference between us is that I have accepted the forgiveness He offers and you (it would seem) have not ... yet. But I hope you will. God is not going to rip you off.

Because He can
It is disappointing to me to hear someone say that they are a creationist and then describe a theory for creation modified from the literal Biblical account in order to try to explain the "old" earth.

Can't a God who created the earth is six literal days make the earth "old"? Adam wasn't a baby when he was created (was he?) - he was created "aged".

I wasn't there so I don't know. However, until I am told otherwise I will believe that God made in six literal days - and it was very good. To believe anything less would be a futile excercise diminish power of our omnipotent God.

jax33
Sure, understood. You're right that this would seriously damage the usefulness of modern translations. Fortunately there wasn't a multi-language excursion involved: today's translations come straight into English from the ancient manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, I'm told, were particularly valuable.

Retired Geek - Origin of energy?
The short answer: I dunno. Looks like no one else knows, either.

Longer answer: Mass/energy fits all the tests we can currently perform for something "eternal" - we've never seen it be created or destroyed. How, then, can we confidently assume it ever *was* created? We don't know what happened before a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang, but that just means we don't (currently) know. There's been a lot of things that we didn't know about that were confidently declared to be 'supernatural' - lightning, earthquakes, cellular reproduction, etc. - that we now understand pretty well.

I admit that human minds don't like infinite regresses, but they also don't like uncaused causes. I haven't seen any good case made to reject either; more, there may be other options we just haven't thought of yet. Humans have fared very badly making assumptions outside of the environment we evolved in - Relativity showed that our intuitions about time and space are, well, wrong, and QM did the same for our intuitions about causality. When people thought the Earth was flat, the only options seemed to be that it either had an edge or went on forever. Once Earth's curvature was recognized, we could understand how it was finite but unbounded.

In an area like 'origins of universes' where we can't do experiments yet, if ever, I'm really loathe to just trust human 'common sense' on the topic. Nature's always been more surprising than we've expected.

Ray Ingles
Ray Ingles wrote:"We don't know what happened before a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang"

-------------------------------------------------
How can there be a big bang unless something existed to "big bang"?
I have arrived at the conclusion that one of the following explains the origin of energy.

1) energy does not exist.

2) energy spontaneously occured from nothing.

3) energy is eternal or without the element of time.

4) energy was created by intelligence.

Without mixing any of the aforementioned, cite a fifth explanation of the origin of energy.

Mike
"It is temping to quarrel over Harris’ use of the term “unintelligent design.”...That reason, of course, is a lack of fossil evidence supporting the notion that evolution explains variations between, not just within, species."

THe Dover Court case literlly exposed the lie here Mike but you knew ythat didn't you?

The four choices
Sure, I can't think offhand of any other options besides those four. That doesn't mean there aren't any other possibilities - as I noted, when the Earth was thought to be flat, it was 'obvious' that there had to be an edge, or else it went on forever. I rather suspect that origins of universes is an area where we just haven't had the right insights yet. Until orbital mechanics were understood, meteors were mysterious - how could a rock fall from the sky? What held it up before?

But even if we assume those are the only options, how can tell which one's right? What experiment can we perform to differentiate between them? Pending such an experiment, I'm still going to have to stick with "I dunno" (though I'm pretty sure #1 is wrong).

schlicty
"Hey Doc, where are the fossils?"

If you actually care to look, start with "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution" @ http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html . It says: "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species....The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification."

Pinto Man
"You can't find transitional species, there aren't any."

I provided a link to just such evidence. Didn't you bother to go there and read? It would take several weeks to read all that. And it's just a small subset of the evidence.

The link in case you missed it: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" @ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . See also link given just above, "Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution" @ http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html .

"The Bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old."

Take that up with YECs (Young Earth Creationists).

"Order does not come from chaos."

Agree. But that's what the Bible says God did.

"Material cannot form itself."

Agree. First law of thermodynamics.

"If we are just matter then the evolutionists can quit arguing because there is nothing they can do about our differences."

Evolutionists don't argue we're just matter. That's metaphysical materialism, a defunct philosophy. Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method.

Retired Geek
"The real question is not how old or young the earth is but the origin of energy."

OK.

"Energy can be changed from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed therefore is always conserved."

First law of thermodynamics. We agree that is true.

But then, if it can't be created or destroyed, as we've agreed, it has no origin, no source, just is.

Not a good argument? Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?


In another post you ask "Do you apply this same logic with theoritical science and quantum physics?"

Yes.

Tacitus X, will
The idea that faith and reason are divorced is relatively new (a couple of hundred years). Faith is described in the Bible as “assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1). It is not “belief in the absence of, or contrary to, reason” or belief because there is no “proof.” This is not at all what Thomas found when Jesus showed him His hands and side (John 20:26-31).

Faith is something to which God responds (e.g., John 3:16) when people decide to trust Him because of – not in spite of, nor contrary to, nor in denial of – what He has actually, historically, done. Christ came to live, die, and rise again, which He did, in space and time. He did this for everyone, but not everyone accepts it. Non-acceptance cannot be said to be due to there being no evidence.

Biblical faith is reasonable but it transcends reason. Reason can comprehend historical evidence, but that is not enough. The bridge from learning about Jesus Christ, His life, death, and resurrection, and getting to know Jesus personally, to be saved, is only possible when He makes it so. He says He stands at the door and knocks (Rev. 3:20) and will bless those who let Him in. He also provides the ability to do that. Similar to John 14:6 quoted above, Jesus also said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him…” (John 6:44).

Faith is not the subject; faith is a choice, an exercise of the will, a decision to trust in Someone who has shown Himself to be trustworthy. Faith is also a sustaining belief, but faith alone is not that which sustains. The reality, the vitality, the power of faith is only as real, vital, and powerful as the One who is the object of faith. “And 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 seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6)

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

lonestarblues
"Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?"

Yes, absolutely. Time is just one means of measuring His creation: it's the dimension along which change occurs. He isn't bound by that measurement any more than He is bound by distance. His life, unlike ours, is not comprised of (a past He can't get back to) + (a future He's not in yet) + (tiny moving point called "the present"). This is why His Name is "I Am."

Exodus 3:14 ---
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
See also John 8:58.

Also:
"Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method."
But doesn't this viewpoint just exclude God a priori as a potential agent? I mean, isn't there a danger that it is falsely limiting?

john Taylor
Aha! I've pegged you.

When you take atheists to task for not being open-minded enough to believe in a God, it is conditional to YOUR God. And all that baggage of virgin births & the out-of-date Laws in Leviticus & Deuteronomy & Exodus and supernatural resurrections & every animal on earth loaded up onto an Ark (2 by 2) as the merciful & loving God annihilates that world in a tyranical "Great Flood".

Please be less devious in your postings. You are not just asking people to remain "open-minded" to "god", but to a very specific, literal interpretation of your god, as set to words by ancient nomadic middle-eastern jews 2500 years ago.

lonestarblues
I did read some of the material on the site you posted. Dr. Theobald includes the following:
"The only incontrovertible evidence for an ancestor-descendant relationship is the observation of a birth; obviously this is normally rather improbable in the fossil record. Intermediates are not necessarily the same as the exact predicted ancestors; in fact, it is rather unlikely that they would be the same."

Dr. Jonathan Wells makes a similar point:
“But no paleontologist worth his rocks – including Stephen Jay Gould – would claim that the series of whale fossils represents an actual lineage, because none of the animals could conceivably have given birth to any of the others. According to Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, all of the fossil whales have ‘distinguishing characteristics, which they would have to lose in order to be considered direct ancestors of other known forms.’ At best, each of the fossils represents a terminal side branch on the whales’ tree of life….Darwinists acknowledge that not one of them would be in the “m” lineage leading to the modern whale, m[10].”
-- Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery, 2006, pg 19-20

Wells provides copious notes in his book, including the URL for Thewissen’s site where whales are also discussed. See his “Icons of Evolution” book as well.

On a related note, the restriction of science to materialism is also recent. Newton and many others didn't think that way.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

will
Whoa. I was not trying to be devious. I certainly AM up front about being a Christian. Yes this does include the overtly supernatural events in the Bible.

I think the problem lies with "take atheists to task for not being open-minded." If that's how it came across, that isn't what I intended. The idea of being open-minded never came into it ... how did I convey that?

jono64a, your ignorance is appalling
I don't know what you mean by "faulty eisegesis" and I'm convinced you don't know either.

You try to berate and patronize Adams by saying, "Mike, Genesis was written in *Hebrew*, not Greek..." jono64a, have you ever heard of the Septuagint? You're correct in your assertion that the original language of the Old Testament was Hebrew, but scholars have viewed the Septuagint (a Greek translation) as a reliable source for centuries.

I don't know if you are an educated fool or an uneducated fool. And if you're not a fool, stop acting like one.

johnTaylor
me "Will you say God has no origin, no source, just is?"

you "Yes, absolutely."

Then by the same argument it is reasonable to say energy and matter have no origin, no source.

"Time is just one means of measuring His creation: it's the dimension along which change occurs."

Einstein showed time is relative. Particle physics suggests it is an emergent property of matter and energy. It's man's measure of things.

"He isn't bound by that measurement any more than He is bound by distance."

We know energy and matter are not. How do you know God isn't?

"His life, unlike ours, is not comprised of (a past He can't get back to) + (a future He's not in yet) + (tiny moving point called 'the present')."

His "life"? Aren't you limiting God by anthropomorphizing Him?

"I am who I am."

Tells us nothing about Him, yet you are telling all these things you conceive.

me "Science is based on methodological materialism, that is, scientific method."

you "But doesn't this viewpoint just exclude God a priori as a potential agent?"

No. If God is an agent He would move meters, He could be measured--defined, and limited. But I thought God lies outside that.

"I mean, isn't there a danger that it is falsely limiting?"

No. Science studies only what it can meter and measure and model. It doesn't pretend to address the supernatural, or to deny it. Science leaves that to philosophers and theologians and the rest of us.

lonestarblues
"...The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification."

Does this mean we are made up opf spare parts? LOL

Old Earth vs. New Earth
A list of what happens on each "day" is below. Can someone tell me how the first 3 days could be 24 hour days if God hadn't separated light from darkness yet ("Day" 4)?

Adams is correct that in the Bible "day" is used many times in reference to an age or a timeperiod that isn't 24 hours. Personally, I believe in old earth, but this really shouldn't be a factor in one's belief in the Christian God.

_______________________________________________
1st day: God creates light.

Second day: God creates the heavens.

Third day: God commands the waters to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees.

Fourth day: God separates light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

Jeff
"Dr. Theobald includes the following: 'The only incontrovertible evidence for an ancestor-descendant relationship is the observation of a birth; obviously this is normally rather improbable in the fossil record. Intermediates are not necessarily the same as the exact predicted ancestors; in fact, it is rather unlikely that they would be the same.'...Dr. Jonathan Wells makes a similar point...."

Yes, transitional fossils are evidence of only evolutionary transitions, not of specific ancestry. But the claim made above by many was not transitional fossils exists.

As for common ancestry we need to turn to other evidence, such as genetics, which, Francis Collins, ex-head of the Human Genome Project, and Evangelical, says supports common descent.

Lack of evidence is not falsification.

"Wells...."

Yes, familiar with him, Creationist at the Discovery Institute.

"On a related note, the restriction of science to materialism is also recent. Newton and many others didn't think that way."

Methodological materialism--just to be clear.

If you look at Newton's work on physics, nothing he says depends on God. As Laplace said to Napoleon, I am not in need of that hypothesis.

Newton does in conclusion bring God in as creator and law-giver. This separation of science and religion is evident as well in the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and others.

Most evolutionists today are Christian. How do they manage?

Philosophy used to include it all. Specialization is like speciation. We see it in economics as well.

To some....
Wow! I thought I was the only conservative atheist left, it's good to know I am not alone. There is hope.

earth
There is according to some readers of ancient writings that at one time the moon and the earth were one.By the way there are untold ancient clay tablets and stone stelae in museums all over the world,and how many have not yet been discovered.It is doubtful they would have much to say about the origin of earth.This argument will continue long after we are all gone.

lonestarblues, others
Saying that a "god" was always here, uncreated & timeless, "was, is and always will be", IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. In fact, it is the opposite, an anti-argument, a point of departure that is irrational from the start.

By the same logic, if "god" was & has always been here, then the exact same "argument" can be made for the universe. It always has been here. Not creation needed. Let's use that as the point of departure.

canuck
Then you'll love Heather Mac Donald, a skeptical conservative, who answers "What is Left? What is Right? @ http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html , or Larry Arnhart's _Darwinian Conservatism_.

Jeff answered
Quoting the Bible to prove its truth is the classic logical fallacy of circulus in probando (circular reasoning). Hint: there's a reason they're called "fallacies."

Whether you like it or not, faith is belief in the absence of, or contrary to, reason. If you have logical grounds and evidence for something, you have knowledge, not faith. Belief in the absence of evidence and logic ("faith") is predictably disastrous. Reality doesn't care what you believe.

Flowery language notwithstanding, "assurance of things hoped for" is precisely what every con man is selling to every gullible mark.

lonestarblues
From what I have read (several of his books and a number of articles), Dr. Wells is more of a proponent of ID than a Creationist.

I understand about lack of evidence. I also understand evidence that is circumstantial, contradictory, or even fake. I agree there is evidence to support modification, but not much with respect to the common ancestor.

I am for open scientific inquiry, not shutting people out or refusing tenure because one does not agree or conform to a theory.

Newton wrote that science was open to influence from, even direct interaction by, the Creator, the God of the Bible.

You've probably seen this quote:
"For it became Him who created them [all material things] to set them in order. And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of Nature..."
-- Sir Isaac Newton, Optics, Book III, 1704, in Great Books, vol. 34, pg. 542

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Separating God from what He has made?
How can you prove God exists without looking at what He has done? If He hadn't done anything we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature,have been "clearly seen", being understood through what has been "made" so they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Tacitus X
I wasn't trying to propose that quoting the Bible alone proves my point. There are legitimate points to be made using Scripture. There are also corroborating evidences, and some of them are in other Scriptures (writers, context, audiences, prophecies, etc). You can choose to dismiss them, but that doesn't make them invalid or disappear.

You can subscribe to the definition of faith that you stated. I disagree. I distinguished between reason/knowledge and faith. What example do you have of faith being limited to "belief in the absence of evidence and logic"? The example I gave of Thomas' change of mind when he saw Christ's hands and side is valid, historical (plenty of other documents to peruse on that score), and relevant to the definition of faith as trusting God based on what He has done, and, going beyond just knowing, crossing the bridge of the cross. You can accept it or reject it.

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Jeff
"From what I have read (several of his books and a number of articles), Dr. Wells is more of a proponent of ID than a Creationist."

ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson.

"I agree there is evidence to support modification, but not much with respect to the common ancestor."

Plenty. The fossil record supports it, genetics, supports it, and much more at the link you began reading--nothing has falsified it. Michael Behe, a proponent of ID even accepts common descent.

"I am for open scientific inquiry, not shutting people out or refusing tenure because one does not agree or conform to a theory."

When ID comes up with a falsifiable hypothesis, scientists will take it seriously.

Gonzalez wasn't refused tenure for that, just more wedge politicization. He's like a business that can't compete in the market so employs politics instead.

"Newton wrote that science was open to influence from, even direct interaction by, the Creator, the God of the Bible."

Hume wrote that would violate the laws of nature.

Again, Newton separates his beliefs from his laws. His laws would have held true whether he believed in God or didn't. His belief adds nothing to the laws of physics. --I'm not saying anything against faith in saying that, I have nothing against faith.

Joycey
"How can you prove God exists without looking at what He has done?"

Why do you need to prove God exists, whatever that may mean to you? Isn't faith necessary and sufficient?

Lboe
You are seriously delusional to believe that the entire fossil record is simply a product of the Noachian Flood. Your ignorance is honestly embarrassing. Please, bestir yourself and go take a Geology 101 class at your local community college. Follow that up with Historical Geology, or Paleontology if it is available for you to audit. (Paleo is usually a 400 level class, so look at a university)

You will learn quite a bit, and you may even have some fun. You will certainly learn how fossil correlation works, and how sedimentation and stratigraphy go hand in hand with that.

When you can explain to me what a disconformity is, and how it is different from a nonconformity or an angular unconformity, I will be more interested in what you are saying.

Bonus points if you can what recumbent folds are.

I am back from my duties
My wife and I work with a group that helps those who are homebound because of age, handicap (physical or mental) or other problems. It is amazing how many there are and that they have no one to help them. Our group is represented by religious, non religious, the political spectrum, different ages and races. We all have a common enemy - those who are in despair and lonely.

Law enforcement provides training, meals on wheels provide food along with food ministries and local merchants etc - some install insulation, fix stairs, safety hazards, help clean etc. Some drive them to appointments, deliver prescriptions, send holiday and birthday cards, telephone them and bring them books and other media from the libraries.

There are some things I probably do not know about that others do.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff
Again, quoting the Bible to prove its truth is fallacious and reptition doesn't change that. Hearsay doesn't improve with age. The fact that 3,000 year old Hindu writings state the Earth is held up by four elephants that stand on the back of a turtle, balanced on top of a cobra, doesn't "prove" that it does. No one is saying your "scriptures...disappear," they just aren't proof of the truth of the matter asserted. They merely show that someone once wrote something down.

Your examples all assume what you're trying to approve (the divinity of Christ) - more circular reasoning (to which you seem especially prone).

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all have reams of ancient "holy documents" attesting to various contradictory miracles. "Faith" is worthless as a guide to sorting out these competing claims. They can plead as loudly as you.

Icedog
Please at least be intellectually honest.

You said,
"The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

First, the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record in no way contradict the theory of evolution. The fact that there transitional fossils do exist and have been found IS evidence FOR evolution.

Your quote above does not jibe at all with reality. I can find plenty of scholarly articles that do in fact show plenty of evidence for transitional fossils. FOR EXAMPLE:

Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the just last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:

Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).

AND ON AND ON. You can quibble about whether this leads you to believe in the possibility of evolution or not. But you can't claim that the "gaps" in the fossil record are disproving the theory.

Second, and more importantly, Why do you even care. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. But believing in the correctness of modern evolutionary theory, genetics, etc. in no way requires you not to believe in god. No more than the fact that there are plenty of unanswered questions in science requires me to believe in any gods.

Retired Geek
"My wife and I work with a group that helps those who are homebound because of age, handicap (physical or mental) or other problems. It is amazing how many there are and that they have no one to help them."

Good for you! I, too, have worked with homebound aged and those handicapped. My parents, in the 80s, still do this, probably my inspiration. This is what's important, volunteering help, not proving God exists, evidencing evolution.

Tacitus X,ModMark,Ingles,lonestarblues
Ignorance will never be in short supply. No one holds all knowledge or truth. I for one believe each should stand by their own beliefs and modify them as we continue through life based on our own perceptions.

I have an issue with those who view reality in a psychotic manner - but that is just me.

I listed the 4 areas that one might view the origin of matter - believe it or not I have personally encountered those who hold each view. All of us are ignorant in some areas and fall short of perfection.

Pick which view you wish and I will pick mine. Some will try to convert others to their view because they fear for our soul or fear we are living in scientific ignorance etc. My solution is that all four views should be taught and let the student decide. No persuasion should force feed the student or have their view required.

I have been fortunate in that I have worked with those where IQ's in the 170's and 180's were common. My partner of several years was an atheist and I a recovered humanist worked in harmony. I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose - I do not answer for you and you are not responsible for me.

Joycey
You are "circular reasoning" with a vengeance.

You are happy to offer "proof" of "god's" existence by quoting scripture. You say a "god" must exist because there's all this STUFF (the act of creation) around us & stuff wouldn't exist unless "god" created it.

Your circular reasoning is, in fact, so heavily circular that it's spin.

Start back at point A. Do not use the Bible as a reference point. That's part of the problem. Now, prove a god exist (PS. Just because there's all this stuff around us....galaxies & black holes from stars collapsed in on themselves....or just because there's a Grand Canyon & poison ivy & marijuana & homosexual animals doesn't mean a "god" is somewhere up there scheming & creating).

celtic-dragon
I studied geology at LSU.

Your haughty attitude towards Lboe does nothing to further your argument.

If you have taken the classes you suggest, then you know that in stratigraphy alone, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples that go against prevailing theories.

You can make your arguments without the superior attitude. To insult someone's religious beliefs, calling them delusional, puts you into the same category as Will.

lonestarblues
Good for you and your parents. All of us can only imagine what they go through, even when we come face to face with it.

I enjoy a lively debate where we can share our views even if all of us lose it at times. God speed!

Tacitus X
Either you are not reading everything I wrote, or I am not be as clear as I intend.

For example, "There are also corroborating evidences, and some of them are in other Scriptures (writers, context, audiences, prophecies, etc)." You've heard of Josephus, Philo, Eusebius, Clement, etc.? They wrote, some positively, some negatively, of Jesus of Nazareth. You know of the pros and cons of eyewitness testimony, and how some judges and lawyers have written that the gospels are good examples of such testimony, that they are not the equivalent of claims that the world is supported by elephants standing on a turtle's back? That they describe, like other historians, events that actually took place? You’ve read that Jesus testified to a number of OT writers, Peter called Paul’s writings Scripture? How would these not qualify as testimony rather than “hearsay”?

Are you aware of the validity of different kinds of evidence, scientific, historical/archeological, legal, textual, etc.? Have you heard that the Bible is the best attested document of antiquity based on different kinds of evidence? That the resurrection is one of the best attested events in antiquity? That prophecy and fulfillment are evidence of special value, historical as well as religious? Or do none of these types of evidence make any difference to you?

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Descent From What?
Lonestar Blues writes: "Plenty. The fossil record supports it, genetics, supports it, and much more at the link you began reading--nothing has falsified it. Michael Behe, a proponent of ID even accepts common descent."

Descent from what? Mud? Spontaneous generation is irrational. It doesn't matter if it happens quickly or slowly. This is why most do not believe in Darwinian Naturalism.

Despite all the endless Naturalist propaganda in academia for umpteen years people find it unbelievable. It doesn't match the complexity of all the multitude of robust systems working in harmony that they see everyday. Most people intrinsically know that it violates the law of cause and effect. Something can't come from nothing.

It's up to science to find the evidence and they have failed. It's not that they aren't getting the word out. They are. What is lacking is believable evididence.



Silly Christians & Theists of all kinds
Here is the heart of this discussion -

I assert there is no evidence for the existence of god. Theists think that there is at least one god, maybe more.

Now even if I am right, that doesn't mean that you can't or "shouldn't" believe in one or more gods. But it is "just" a belief, not a fact.

Why does my non belief "take precedence" over your belief for the world of science? Because a real scientist does not rely on belief to explain the world, invent things, cure diseases.

If a scientist doesn't know the answer to some question, they treat it as an opportunity. They study, do experiments, analyze the results, formulate hypotheses, device ways to test them and build and refine theories. They advance our understanding, create airplanes, computers, medicine, and rocket ships.

Belief in god won't produce a thing, will not advance our knowledge one iota.

What is the DUMBEST thing a theist can do in this discussion? Claim that because there are things scientists cannot explain there must be a god. How absolutely STUPID!!! Suppose the scientist discovers an explanation in the future? Is the theist then going to say, Sorry Slacker, guess you were right all along, there is no god. I doubt it.

That is why the "god of the gaps" argument for god is such a silly one.

lonestarblues n1
“ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson.”
Hardly, but it is a common ruse.

Pardon the repetition: ID is not Creationism. It is not limited to explaining Genesis and other books. It allows for God as Designer but also allows for people as designer; the means by which phenomena are identified and criteria are applied work the same regardless. If you find a dictionary on the street, you determine it is a product of design rather than of numerous successive modifications via natural selection. DNA? It has more information than an encyclopedia. That’s a brief differentiation. You can get more detailed scientific descriptions in a number of places, including Wells’ book to which I referred, William Dembski’s book, The Design Revolution, etc.

Continued…

Mack, get a grip
No one is claiming "spontaneous generation." The theory of evolution is not dependent on "spontaneous generation" to explain the "descent of species."

Get a grip.

Are there questions that science cannot currently answer? Such as how did the first self replicating molecule come in to being? When did it occur? Why is there something rather than nothing in the first place?

Sure. But that doesn't mean that there is a god.

lonestarblues n2
Re falsifiability, there are a number of qualifications for this too. Larry Laudan wrote falsifiability “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which make ascertainably false assertions.” (Laudan, The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, in Michael Ruse (ed), But Is It Science?, pg 337-50; cited in Wells, PIG to Darwinism and Intelligent Design) For a much fuller treatment, see The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories, by Stephen C. Meyer (2005, http://www.discovery.org/a/2834). An excerpt: “Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory “untestable” and classified it as a “metaphysical research programme.” While he later revised his judgment, he did so only after liberalizing his notion of falsifiability to allow the weaker notion of “falsifiability in principle” to count as a token of scientific status.”

Newton and Hume had different worldviews. Whodathunkit?

For the Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) of the Founders ><>

Retired Geek
"Ignorance will never be in short supply."

No kidding.

"Pick which view you wish and I will pick mine. Some will try to convert others to their view because they fear for our soul or fear we are living in scientific ignorance etc. My solution is that all four views should be taught and let the student decide. No persuasion should force feed the student or have their view required."

Sort of speaks to moral relativism, doesn't it?

Should we teach religion in science classes and science in religion classes are you saying?

On force we agree, keep politics out of it, keep government out of it--out of education altogether.


"I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose...."

Liberty of conscience. We agree again.

I always assumed "Intelligent design"
was just creationism dressed up, another (failed) attempt of evangelicals to get the discussion of "God" back into the school system.

husker 2
Thanks for the information and support
Lboe

Right on, Jerry
"There are no quick fixes to the moral decay of American society, our pluralism and political correctness, welfare systems and social justice by government has effectively destroyed families. The stupid arguments about creation vs. evolution is a sidebar. "

Exactly. We can't do anything about whether we were created or evolved or both. We can, poor and rich alike, take responsibility for ourselves and get rid of welfare and "social justice".

We can quit being so damnably self-centered and get over being offended over any stupid little thing.

We can become self-reliant and get government out of our lives.

We can quit bickering over Christian this or atheist that, blah blah blah.

Most of you are a buncha infantalized whiners who want everything your way and simply cannot live and let live. Get your busybody noses out of everyone else's business and take a good hard look at yourselves.

Husker2
Your criticism is fair with respect to your claim that I was haughty.

I suppose I was.

I'm not not always sure just how to respond to jaw dropping ignorance, however. That is just what Lboe displayed, so I admit to being rather harsh. C'est la vie.

I have no idea where you are in your studies. I am a senior in Geology, having taken a long break from school. Yes, I know there are always some sort of anomalies in the sediment record. I also know they are generally explainable without resorting to Catastrophism to account for them. You must know perfectly well that the fossil record is clear and unambiguous WRT the gradational and increasing complexity of life...from the Cryptozoic Burgess Shale Fauna all the way to the Quaternary. Trying say that thousands and thousands of feet of geologic record that has been deposited, intruded by volcanics, uplifted, eroded, covered with additional sediment, subjected to crustal deformation and so on and so on with attendant fossil correlation in various phases is some how the product of a single flood event is simply equivalent to asserting that gravity does not exist. That does not even begin to address the mechanics of deposition.

For instance, you would know that lecustrine depositional processes are markedly different from fluvial depositional process...and both types of sediment suites in turn look nothing like marine depositional suites or alluvial fan deposits and so forth.

Things have to pointed out when serious mistakes are made WRT science. I am not a lawyer, and I would not presume to tell lawyers they are flat wrong concerning something I know nothing about. I advise Lboe to find out about Geology before making a silly claim.

lonestarblues
Origins should be taught in a philosophy class.
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means"
-------------------------------------------------
Common definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

One side believes "faith" in God is a proof.

The other believes "faith" in future knowledge is a proof.
-------------------------------------------------


Both sides are "faith" based and neither should be taught as science

Question for Slacker
Slacker says: "Are there questions that science cannot currently answer? Such as how did the first self replicating molecule come in to being? When did it occur? Why is there something rather than nothing in the first place?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that there is a god."

Why not? It sounds like you believe in atheism (or agnosticism)of the gaps. Somewhere, somehow science will explain how something came from nothing. Somewhere, somehow we'll figure out how we evolved from mud. It really is hard to take naturalism seriously.

Here's a thought, maybe it was a special kind of mud or a special kind of nothing. Let's wait for science to spoon feed us the answers.

Kenneth Miller, ally of misotheists
lonestarblues, Collins really is a dogmatic evolutionist, and his scriptural understanding is abysmal. I doubt that Kenneth Miller is a Christian at all. A review of his dreadful book can be found at http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826

Genesis is historical narrative
Happy Jake, how could you possibly stretch the date of Adam back to 200,000 years? There would have to be over 6000 missing names from the genealogies.

Yes, considering that we still know so little about aging, why not take Methuselah's age as literal. What do you think it means? See "Living for 900 years" http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/

Genesis is no parable, it is Hebrew historical narrative, as shown by its grammar and how the rest of the Bible treats it. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5450/

It is no parable. Just think of what parables say:

Mt 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.

Mt 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.

Lu 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Parables in the NT are clearly stated to be such, and always an explanation of X is like Y, or W is [represents] Z.

Jeff
me "ID is just a new version of Creationism. It's a political agenda founded by Phillip Johnson."

you "Hardly, but it is a common ruse."

That ID is science, yes. That it's Creationism, no. You say it yourself: “It allows for God as Designer”. That's Creationism.

"...the means by which phenomena are identified and criteria are applied work the same regardless...."

Irreducible complexity is not phenomena. It's criteria is a tautology, it defines the question as the answer.

"If you find a dictionary on the street, you determine it is a product of design rather than of numerous successive modifications via natural selection."

For one, you speak of an artifact, when what's natural is the question. For another, you speak of man's design, but how do you go from man's design to God's? You risk designing God in man's image. Thus, ID is not even good religion.

I've read Wells, Dembski, Behe, Johnson and many more: Where is the falsifiable hypothesis? How is it testable? Without that it's not science. --Behe, btw, accepts the three pillars of evolutionary theory: randdom mutation, natueal selection and common descent. He says the evidennce overwhelmingly supports them. His only argument is with random mutation.

"Re falsifiability, there are a number of qualifications for this too. Larry Laudan wrote falsifiability 'has the untoward consequence of countenancing as "scientific" every crank claim which make ascertainably false assertions.'"

What he wrote indicates a lack of understanding what falsifiability in scientific method means. It certainly doesn't mean making false claims, lol. It means making claims that predict outcomes and the means by which to test that in a repeatable way by anyone in the field. Falsifiability demarcates BS from science, the opposite of philosopher Laudan's opinion.

Jeff, 2
"'Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory 'untestable'"

Interesting. First you cite Laudan refuting Popper's claim about the need for falsifiable hypotheses in science. Then you not only try to apply the refuted falsifiability but you cite in support Popper who you just argued against. Which is it?

Popper changed his mind by 1978, Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355: “When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory....I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.”



Getting back to ID, how is it testable?

Your ignorance is showing, Ice
Icedog: "You either have no understanding of socialism or you are completely ignorant of American history....I'm guessing probably both.
---------------------
We've always had a mixed economy. Back in America's heyday, we were more socialist, in the sense that we had strong and effective unions protecting the rights of the worker. Today, it is brutal capitalism for the unit of production, and blessed socialism for the ownership class. Think Bear Stearns.

Self-immolation?
Joycey: "People who believe in what is impossible loose their ability to be reasonable.
--------------------
The short definition of an evangelical Christian.

Day WITH A NUMBER is normal day
I'd rather be in Alaska, what a moron. The LXX dates from 250 BC. Genesis 1 is vastly older than that, and was written in Hebrew, which is what mattered. But your crass outburst changes nothing. In the Greek, hemera with a number means an ordinary day. It is folly to wrench its meaning from a place with a different context. Even in English, there are different meanings of the word "day" which are clear from the context. You might say, "in Eisenhower's day, he took 10 days to travel from Normandy to Berlin". There would be no problem knowing that "Eisenhower's day" means the time when he flourished, but "took 10 days" means 10 ~24-hour periods, because the latter has a number. The days in Genesis 1, like those in Numbers 7, are likewise numbered, so must mean ordinary-length days.

Retired Geek
"Origins should be taught in a philosophy class. 'a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means'"

I'm good with that. Thing is evolutionary theory doesn't address origins.

"Common definition of faith: 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof.'"

Is that all faith means to you?

"One side believes 'faith' in God is a proof."

Faith cannot establish truth.

"The other believes 'faith' in future knowledge is a proof."

I thought we were talking about evolutionary theory. Science itself is not about proof. What are you talking about?

jono64a
"lonestarblues, Collins really is a dogmatic evolutionist, and his scriptural understanding is abysmal. I doubt that Kenneth Miller is a Christian at all."

Two for one: One, no true Scotsman fallacy, two, ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Days are ordinary days not "God days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

Days must be normal days not "God days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

Days are ordinary, not "God's days"
Happy Jake

I didn't miss a thing. I even said that Peter and Psalms taught that God is outside time. So to *Him*, a night-watch shift and day is *like* a thousand years. It doesn't mean that a day is a thousand years to time-bound creatures.

Consider 1 Kings 2:11:

‘And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.’

Did God experience the seven and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes!

Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from *our* perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time. He even told us that they were ordinary days by the comparison in Exodus 20:8–11 about the Sabbath Commandment.

Sorry about duplication
But the site was not registering it as posted.

Collins and Miller refutations given
lonestarblues, being a mimophant doesn't impress me. I provided references that deal with the messages of Collins and Miller. And I'm not going to be told by any Bibliophobe who I am allowed to consider a fellow Christian. If an atheistic governent started persecuting Christians, they wouldn't have the slightest evidence to convict Miller. And his defence attorney could easily point to his trashing of the Bible (Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken") and allying with rabid misotheists like Dawko or Eugenie Scott (Paul told us not to be unequally yoked).

God reveals himself
to the simple. A good move on His part because He knew the intellectual egomaniacs would never accept anything outside of their own knowledge and feelings. Also, I'm not sure ALL Christians agree that the Earth is 6,000 years old. the Bible gives the lineage from Adam to Christ which adds up to 6,000 years. Show me any civilized records that date back any farther than that.

Correction:
The lineage from adam to Christ, then adding the years since Christ's crucifixtion to now adds up to 6,000 years.

Retired Geek - energy is ?
This is outside my area of expertise but I'm interested in the topics. Besides, I did stay at a Holiday Inn near the Smithsonian once.

I have arrived at the conclusion that one of the following explains the origin of energy.

Sincere questions: Is it necessary to explain the origin of energy? Does the existence of energy require that it have an origin? Does origin imply beginning, beginning imply time, and since energy exists independent of time (and place, too, right?), would that mean that energy exists independent of beginning and origin?

1) energy does not exist.

2) energy spontaneously occured from nothing.

3) energy is eternal or without the element of time.

4) energy was created by intelligence.

Without mixing any of the aforementioned, cite a fifth explanation of the origin of energy.

5) There is no origin--energy IS.

Then what is energy? I would have to borrow from #4 but I can't mix any of the aforementioned. If you can cut me some slack on the rules, I would combine 4 and 5.

6) Energy is intelligence--a Giant Cosmic Brain that exists independent of origin, end, time, and space.

The human brain creates energy without destroying matter (not for sure, but I think that's right). Some human brains can create energy that "fiddles" with matter--bending spoons and such. This can be done with purpose and intent, not accidentally. If our pitiful human brain can do this, what can the big brain do?

The Giant Cosmic Brain can/could/might squirt out bolts of energy to create purpose and intent any possibility of matter that it imagines--the universe for example, with bits and pieces of matter and energy. Are the disparate manifestations of energy still connected to the source, the Giant Cosmic Brain?

Answer for Mack
You ask why, since I don't know the answer to every single question that can be asked about the origins of the universe this doesn't mean there must be a god.

I'll assume you are seriously asking this question.

Not so many years ago scientists could not explain how the sun produced its energy, why it has burned for so long without going out, and could not predict how long it will last.

Did that mean there was a god? No, it just means they did not know the answer to these things.

After a number of years of study and hard work they now know the answer to all these questions. Does that mean that if you believed in a god before that now the scientists have proven your god does not exist.

If we don't know the answer to a question, all it means is we don't know. It doesn't give us the ability to say it proves anything at all.

Saying the fact that there are unanswered questions in science proves there is one or more gods is no different than saying it proves the easter bunny exists. It is pure nonsense.

Retired Geek - energy is ? Pt. 2
Like a power plant, in some ways. Energy can be shot out to do different things--light a home, run a machine. The power plant cannot create matter (except indirectly through the machines it runs) and it has no directed purpose or intent not guided by the plant manager or computers that run it. The power plant lacks the same thing as the Scarecrow. If it only had a brain!

Someone mentioned that lightning, thunder etc. were considered supernatural until science advanced enough to explain them. The existence of the super(supra)natural (beyond, outside of physical nature and its laws) is proven by some scientists ("regular" ones, not just paranormal psychologists) with evidence of ESP, telekinesis, near death experience, people living past lives, spirits, the list goes on. Our science based on the natural world just isn't adequate to observe, analyze, and codify the supernatural into a codex of "supernatural laws." Perhaps it can be some day with a combination of (super)natural science, reason and logic, and even faith (intuition, gut feeling).

The supernatural (not to be confused with fantasy or science fiction) is also a manifestation of the Giant Cosmic Brain. Maybe when we can penetrate the supernatural and understand it we may meet the Giant Cosmic Brain.

Or maybe I've watched too much "Star Trek."

Jeff's shabby "faith"
Is it more probable that physical laws were violated or that a zealot was mistaken or lied?

If the "resurrection" is your "best attested event," you're in real trouble. Matthew 27.51-53 purports to report on incidents during the resurrection:

"And, behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

None of the other three Gospels mention this remarkable occurrence, which, had it occurred, would obviously have been too significant for the other New Testament writers or Roman historians to ignore, or deem unremarkable. The Romans could write quite well! Worse yet, the gospels of Matthew were written anywhere from 37 to 67 years after that supposed event, when they were suddenly "remembered." P.T. Barnum had more credibility!

Moreover, on what basis can believers in one religion deny the reported miracles of other religions? How does one distinguish historical fact from mythological fancy? Let me guess: your religion is right and the others wrong. No "testimony" of any miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to proof because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not mere say-so.


Retired geek disappoints
What?! All this dramatic build-up and what we get is "I believe God is creator, you may believe whatever you choose - I do not answer for you and you are not responsible for me." The mountains quake, the earth splits open - and a mouse appears!

Very disappointing. Zero for intellectual content.

Good article Mike
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the articles and comments today. Congrats to all who posted here. Mike, you have a way of bringing out the best and the worst in people, so I assume you've done your job.

I don't think there is any possible way anyone could sum up this ID vs Evolution in 2000 words or less, but I have often wondered why should we?

To me this sounds like two brothers fighting, never to agree on anything. One says the chicken came first, the other says the egg. Yet while they argue, they forget to feed the chickens and no more eggs! My thought is that one supports the other, both should be taught in a theories class and not as sciences. A lesson in critical thinking, if nothing else.

I was raised knowing 9 planets in our solar system. Oops! now there's only 8, or more than 9, depending on who's definition of what constitutes a planetary body. How many more are still in deep orbit around the sun that we haven't detected yet? Tell me, how many kids got that question wrong in science class, and now that we 'know better', many less were right than were wrong.

The fallibility of science is glaring, we can't accurately predict weather, earthquakes or any 'natural' phenomena, yet we are so unnaturally certain that man came from monkeys that we are willing to toss God right out the window? Even the dumbest gambler knows to hedge