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
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
Atheism - A Godless Delusion
by Phil Harris
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The ridiculous caricatures of "God" that Dawkins and devout atheists stand up for the purpose of knocking them down have no chance when compared to these ingenious chemical compounds.

I may not hold the educational credentials of the likes of Dawkins, but I am intelligent, open minded, scientifically curious, and mindful of how little is truly known about the Universe we live in, despite the considerable knowledge that has been accumulated.

I can understand how one might look at all that is wrong in the world, and wonder how there could be a God looking on, seemingly uncaring and unwilling to stop the suffering. It is also easy to look at the behavior of mankind in the name of religion, or with religion as the excuse for unspeakable deeds and wonder how there is any goodness to be worshiped. Of course, this gives mankind a pass and places the blame for atrocious behavior at the foot of God instead.

The fallacy of such thinking lies in the assumption that God is misbehaving according to some Book of Proper God Behavior that I or anyone else is privy to. Must we believe that if God is real, that God is manipulating life on Earth, as if playing some kind of video game?

This clump of self-aware chemical compounds will continue to believe that there is more to the story of life and the Universe, than an unbridled, unstoppable run of chemical reactions. In fact, until Richard Dawkins can demonstrate the acquired ability to mix up a batch of molecules and produce a single blade of grass that is eager to join the evolutionary process, then I will take by faith that God does exist.

I will also take great interest in scientific discovery about the world and Universe I live in. One can appreciate both the scientific method and have a faith based view at the same time. Academics that have devoted themselves to eradicate religious views and those who hold them have absolutely no scientific basis on which to stand. Indeed, their willingness to claim otherwise should provide good reason for caution when considering any work they produce.

My mother and my daughter no longer inhabit this world, and I have no reason to believe that the persons they were, simply vanished due to the dissolution of their chemical processes. There is a spark beyond chemistry that is life and person, and whatever it is will exist despite the protestations and ridicule from Richard Dawkins and those who find comfort in utter nothingness.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

Be the first to read Phil Harris' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

response to Freddie 9:42 PM
Actually I don't think that evolution says we evolved from monkeys. Evolution says that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. Big difference.

As for transitional species - How would you define that? If it's intra-species, then we have a change within a species (same species). If it's a new species, then it's a new species. What exactly is this transitional species? Is it the old one or the new one? There are plenty of species out there that are closely tied. At what level of genetic similarity are you willing to say that it's a transitional species as opposed to "just another species"? (maybe 98%..)

If you don't want to buy evolution, you can always move the goalposts on the definition for the "missing link". Too little change - intra-species adaptation. Too much - a whole new species. If you want proof it's up to you to define acceptable criteria.

Along those same lines - do you know what the mechanism is for environmental adaptation? I'll give you a hint - think mutation and selection. Drawing an arbitrary line on how far those mutations can go (keep it within a "species") will also require some explanation on your part.

Freddie
The "crock" is your understanding of evolution.

"According to advocates of Darwin's theory of evolution, monkeys evolved into apes, and apes evolved into early humanoids, who evolved into man."

Wrong, early humanoids and apes evolved from a common ancestor which is, you guessed it, now extinct. This means the rest of your post is incorrect as well. If you want to debate evolutionary theory you would do yourself a service to understand it first.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.