Jesus is the difference

Corrections:

I should have said "no, I would NOT agree with that"

RC said, "The point I was trying to make was this: Working purely from reason, order and complexity are evidence of intelligence, and intelligence is evidence of a mind. Setting all else aside (including imagination) for the moment, was this your understanding of my use of the computer analogy?"

Now you've got me confused again. Are you saying that anything exhibiting reason, order and complexity must have been created by intelligence then no I would agree with that. First, life does not necessarily have all three components. The salamander running around on my front porch exhibits order and complexity but it doesn't have a reasoning.

A crystal shows order, can replicate to the extent that it can increase the number of crystalline structures but it isn't alive. Was it intelligently designed?

With all due respect, I suspect that you willingly ignore the geographic record, the fossil record and the genetic record, all of which points to evolution as the principle under which life changes and adapts or dies. Your rationalization seems to be based solely on "the universe is so complex and exhibits order" that it must have been created by an intelligent designer. Is that your argument in a nutshell?

By the way, I would argue with the order part. Some aspects of the universe are ordered. Others are not.

When John Glenn first orbited the earth and he looked out at that beautiful blue sphere, he uttered something to the effect of "I now know that there must be a God for only God could have created such beauty". (It's not exact, but it's close).

At the very moment when Glenn uttered those words a hurricane was ripping through Central America and killing 20,000 men, women and children.

Why would an intelligent designer ever design such a world?

TW,
A “Commodore Pet?” Man, you ARE old. :) Although my father did own a Commodore 64 (I know, it wasn't a “66.” Can't believe I 'forgot' the memory [64K] connection there), I've never heard of a “Pet.” From your description it sounds like a glorified calculator.

I will try to respond to all the issues you raised in your last post, but I want to zero in on one particular issue here. You said that you understood the point of my computer analogy (technical errors notwithstanding) and then you went on to say that it didn't make any difference because you didn't agree with other areas of my apologetic. I want to make sure that you understood the thrust of my analogy as I was (admittedly weakly) trying to communicate it.

The point I was trying to make was this: Working purely from reason, order and complexity are evidence of intelligence, and intelligence is evidence of a mind. Setting all else aside (including imagination) for the moment, was this your understanding of my use of the computer analogy?

PS. In that your theoretical “army of intelligent designers” hate every movie made with Vince Vaughn....I like 'em already.

RC,

Actually, I was referring to the three conclusions I interpreted from your previous posts. I attempted to summarize them.

By the way, I'm fine with working backwards or inside out. I find the dialog and the exchange as much fun as "winning" an argument.

A little background. I was trained in college as an environment scientist specializing in marine biology. I discovered computers in my senior year and from that point on it's been all computers.

I worked for AT&T for 10 years introduction them to personal computers by bringing my own in for use during salary evaluations(an Apple II). Then I started the first personal computer support group before leaving to form a PC software development company in 1983.

I've spent most of my adult life building software and so I'm familiar with logic trees and what happens when you make unsupported assumptions, at least with computer systems.

Hey TW,

Thanks for the response. I was afraid I had lost you. Most of the guys in your camp dismiss me "out of hand" when they demand (and I supply) conclusions without having yet fully laid the necessary foundation. I appreciate the fact that you didn't respond that way. I can work "backwards" from my conclusions as easily as working toward them, I just don't usually get the opportunity.

I know I butchered the technicalities in my computer analogy. :) Not very computer literate, though I do, to some degree, appreciate the astounding advances.

A quick point of clarification. When you state:

"But I understand your point. It still makes no difference because I think I accurately described your position in my last clause -- unless I misunderstood you."

Are you referring to you "buzzz..." paragraph in your previous email?

RC,

Part 2:

Point #2 displays even less reasoning. Okay, so I happen to believe that the universe is so complicated that its design had to be carried out by an army of intelligent designers, working together for 15 quad-zillion years. The number of said designers is 2.356 X 10^14. I also believe, based on my impression of the vastness of the universe, that they do not occupy space and time as we know it, but their life span must be at least 45 trillion years. They have no physical limitations since they in fact defined the laws of physics. Oh, and one other thing; they hate every movie made with Vince Vaughn.

Point #3 is and always has been, my favorite among ID proponents. It is the God exception or in my case, the Gods exceptions. It simply states that all things must have a first cause, except God who must always be. As you know, there is absolutely no more evidence that God or Gods must have always been versus the universe. Why couldn't the universe have always been, varying between the pre-big bang state and the post-big bang state?

Now RC, my conclusions demonstrate the same level of evidence that you supplied in making your assertions. Turning back to the original question as to evolution, I can supply evidence from many different disciplines ranging from genetic, geologic, fossil, skeletal, chemical and even throw in a few transitional species as a bonus.

But wait, if you act now, we'll also throw in the guide to poorly designed organs subtitled; "What the hell were you thinking when you designed the knee?" And if you act now, we'll throw in the evidence of untold numbers of extinct species titled, "Why did they all have to die? Can't we all just get along?"

Operators are standing by.

So send me something tangible. Anything.

RC,

Part 1:

I understand the point you're trying to make. But first, a few corrections. A Commodore 64 meant 64 K not Meg. You younguns don't really appreciate that the typical Smartphone today has more memory than the IBM 370 mainframes that I once worked on. 64K means it has 64 X 1024 bytes of memory, not enough to load the video of a typical Windows computer I'm afraid.

But I understand your point. It still makes no difference because I think I accurately described your position in my last clause -- unless I misunderstood you.

The points you made were:
1. The universe is so complicated that you can't imagine it coming into being in any other way than intelligently designed.

2. The shear complexity of the universe and the variety of life also allows you to conclude that the capabilities of the designer are so far beyond our comprehension that it must be a single entity and couldn't possibly be more than one.

3. Everything has a first cause and thus the universe itself must have a first cause. That first cause must be an intelligent designer -- see #1.

Now, aside from a very cute analogy revolving around a Commodore 64 (my first computer was a Commodore Pet with 16K of memory and no floppies) you extend no evidence in support of your first point. Because you can't imagine the universe without a designer does not mean there's evidence for such a designer, the limits of your imagination not withstanding.

Hey, TW (continued)

Rather than the expected simple programs that characterized the old Commodore 66 model (it only had 64 MB of memory), I began to discover some rather sophisticated programs! There was a fully-intact word processor that looked curiously similar to Microsoft Word '07, an amazing spreadsheet program, and an audio program that looked every bit as capable as itunes.

Upon further investigation I discovered a highly complex accounting program, a cabinet software program capable of rendering 3D drawings, cut-lists, and cost estimates, and even an internet search engine! (Did I mention that this computer was still, even as I was discovering all of this, NOT PLUGGED IN TO ANY SOURCE OF POWER??!!)

My head spinning, I picked up the phone and called the neighborhood computer geek. Though I don't think he believed me initially, he dropped what he was doing and rushed right over. After poking, prodding, and typing furiously on the keyboard for the better part of an hour he sat back, gripped his head with both hands, and stated: “Mr. Cofield, I have never seen anything like this in all of geek-dom. Your Commodore 66, though not even plugged in, seems to be generating some rather sophisticated programs on its own. There are software programs on here that are so complicated I am not even sure what they do. Additionally, it appears that this computer is somehow generating additionally memory at an astounding rate. If my calculations are correct, the 64MD that was originally on this computer has now expanded to 500 gig!"

You can imagine my consternation. Having a friend who is a computer programs analyst for NASA, I picked up the phone and dialed him. To make a long story bearable, after expressing doubts about my personal sanity, my friend finally agreed to come over and take a look. This is what he discovered.

This little Commodore 66 computer now has programs on it that (according to my friend from NASA—this is WAY over my head) are capable of putting a satellite into orbit around the earth. Further, according to this NASA programs analyst's calculations, if this computer continues to expand its memory and create these new, highly complex programs, it will, in a matter of a few months, be capable of putting a man on the moon!

I am at my wit's end here. I can't find anyone who can give me the slightest insight into how this is even possible. I hope you can help me.

And oh, did I mention, this thing is STILL not plugged into a power source and is STILL, two weeks after my discovery, whirring, clicking, and working away!

Hey TW,

You mentioned you were in the computer software field. I have a problem with a computer I was hoping you could help me with. Not knowing much about computers, this one really has me stumped.

I was looking for some business records in a climate-controlled room in my attic a couple of weeks ago, and I noticed a humming sound coming from a box I had stored up there. When I opened the box it contained an old Commodore 66 computer that my father had discarded some 20 years ago. (Being something of a pack-rat, I couldn't bring myself to throw it away.) This thing had been setting in my attic untouched for almost 20 years

Upon further investigation, I discovered that, though the computer was not connected to a power source of any kind, it was running! You can imagine my incredulity. My curiosity then being more than mildly aroused, I gathered it up and hastily brought it down to my study and set it up on my desk. As I began to investigate, I was astounded at what I found.

TBC

Oh RC, you had my hopes raised only to dash them on the use of circular logic.

So the extent of your evidence is, if I can summarize them in my primitive fashion; "I can't imagine how anything this complex could have been created without God".

And, what kills me even more is your use of the God exception -- everything has a first cause, ah except God who was always there.

buzzzz... Sorry, your post contains no evidence. It is simply window dressing around circular logic with exceptions. You can't even point to evidence of a singular designer other than my God is so great he/she/it must be unique.

I was expecting much better.

TW,

Your first and second question: “So are you saying the universe was "designed" and then left to evolve on its own?” And “Is there only one ID or is there an entire race of designers?”

Deism is the school of thought that contends that a supreme being created the universe, but (largely) rejects the idea that this supreme being intervenes in time-space/history/human affairs. Deists who embrace DET often contend, as insinuated in your question, that this being did indeed “design” the universe and left it to evolve on its own, much in the way one would design a clock, wind it, and leave it to function per the “designer's design.”

As a theist, I would reject the deist's idea of an “uninvolved” God. Working from the clear and undeniable evidence that the cosmos is intricately and intelligently designed, I would contend the following points.

1) Reason demands that for every “effect” there must be a necessary, first, and moving cause.

2) Logic does not allow infinite regress. Hence, if the chain of cause and effect is traced backwards there arises, at some point, the necessity of a First Cause.

3) Reason demands that such a First Cause be Self-Existent, or “uncreated” (else infinite regress is logical).

4) Given that the “effect” (the universe) evidences an infinite complexity of design, reason demands that this Self-Existent First Cause possess an infinitude of both power and intelligence.

5) In that there exists no known examples of intelligence absent a mind, the only rational explanation for the infinite diversity and complexity of the cosmos is an Infinite Mind.

6) Logic demands that such an Infinite Mind be without rival or competitor.

7) The only Being ever conceived of possessing such Causal Agency, Self-Existence, and Infinitude of Power and Intelligence is the God of the Bible.

8) The God of the Bible is self-evidently both personal and involved in His creation.

9) In that the evidences God gives of himself in the Bible, worked out in history--and the evidences God gives of Himself in His creation—are without refutation, reason demands of all men the acceptance of His existence.

Let's talk....reasonably, logically, and rationally. :)

TW,

Ah, yes. Will reply.

RC,

I embedded your quote to cornbread in my last post then I discussed what conclusion you seemed to form.

Hey TW,

I'll try to post my response to your first question on ID sometime tonight. I'm in the office now (6:00 AM my time) and my last meeting won't be until 6:30 PM. Looong day.

In the meantime, may I ask what conclusions you think I am jumping to in my reply to CORNBREAD?

whooops wrong thread

Readers can Google the case and see the text I quoted. They can compare that text to your earlier statement that the Supreme Court case did not define Secular Humanism as a religion. blasmaic

They can also see all of relevant case law and see you're full of beans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism

Peloza v. Capistrano School District

The implication in Justice Black's footnote that Secular Humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea.

The claim that Secular Humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1173 (1995). In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of Secular Humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:[18]

The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law.

RC,

Glad you're back although based on your responses to cornbread, you seem to be jumping to conclusions. But we can discuss this further, let's address your response to me.

You returned my quote which was NOT an assertion of evidence. It was nothing more than an acceptance of the progress humanity has made in identifying the foundations needed to form life and a speculation on my part that prior to the end of my life, we will probably be able to recreate the circumstances that caused life to be. It will be primitive and rudimentary, probably resembling many of fraternity brothers back from my college days.

I did not imply that evolution and the origin of life are related. I simply speculated based on progress in this area over the last 20 years.

As for evolution, you've made a few more statements to which I disagree. Again, you haven't backed them up. Here's an example:

In replying to cornbread you concluded:
"As an aside, the prevailing view that evolution is an undirected process is a painfully obvious misnomer. Recognizing this, evolutionists attribute the “direction” of the evolutionary process to an abstract principle—natural selection. Thus, in contradiction to every known rule of logic, they attribute highly organized and complex information [intelligence] to an abstract principle."

First, the assertion of the evolutionary biologists that I read do not classify evolution as undirected. They classify it as undesigned, unplanned. It is directed, but not by an intelligent agent but by the surrounding environment. The intelligent design theory presumes there's intelligence behind the design and the OUTCOME is directed. This flies in the face of all the evidence I see.

What intelligent designer would plan a world in which 90% of the previously designed species become extinct? This is just one of many questions I would ask such a designer if they existed.

Your conclusion that evolution is undirected differs from what the biologists that I read, conclude. They say it's unplanned, not designed, but environmentally directed.

Now, do you agree that life today, alters to a changing environment or do you believe there's a plan lurking for every species and that plan includes for the majority, extinction?

If I understand ID correctly (and here is where you can set me straight), all life as we know if was "designed" by an intelligent agent. This implies that the outcome, the end result is planned. If that's true, what a waste. Why do I need remnants like a tail bone, from what I think is an ancestral species?

TW,

You state: "I'm saying you've made statements about ID that you haven't backed up. There are reams of evidence for evolution."

Interestingly, you have made a number of statements about evolution that you have not "backed up." For instance, you state:

"I believe that within my life time (58 now), science will be able to cause primitive life to spontaneously be generated."

In the interest of equity, may I ask you one question for each question you ask me? If so, I would start by asking if you are aware of the logical contradictions (there are at least 3) within the above quoted statement? If you are, may I ask how you resolve them? If you are not, ask me nicely (attempt at humor there) and I will be glad to attempt to explain it to you.

(Warning: Logic reference ahead!) If my calculations are correct, your statement may have violated every known law of the "space-time/cause-effect continuum." :)

TW,

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but, fair enough.

I will begin with the first question you posed in your post of July 15, 2010 3:47 PM. I will, however, be answering from a purely creationist standpoint, though there will be correlative points from ID that I will incorporate into my answers.

Having studied these issues from the standpoint of DET, ID, and biblical creationism, I am convinced that the theistic creationism perspective supplies both greater evidences and better answers to the questions you are posing.

I'll post my first answer tomorrow, we can discuss it, and then move on to my second answer...and so on.

Keep your flux capacitor fueled and hold on Doc, we're going back to the future. :)

CORNBREAD,

You then, with apparent condescension, suggest that I should “just pick up a real science book and read this stuff on (my) own,” and then refer me to the websites of the likes of Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, etc. and suggest that I wear my “asbestos underwear” :) when reading them.

CORNBREAD, I am aware of the best arguments that these guys have posited. I have read and listened to the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Meyers (…..just fill in a name here, for there are not many that I haven’t read) for years—and I have sound, rational, reasonable, logical, even scientific reasons for disagreeing with them. And despite the fact that you guys want to pretend otherwise, I am not alone in this.

Darwin himself noted that “A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, when I begin to try and shift the discussion to the “other side” of the questions by positing my own thesis and requesting either an affirmation or rebuttal of it, you respond by bowing out and assuring me that “as far as my participation is concerned, you might as well be debating Bozo the Clown.” Really? I think the extent of your participation belies the vehemence of your declaration.

And this seems (we will see), much like others on this post, to be an elitist attempt to isolate your position from a closer examination. If that is the case, whose mind do you think is closed here?

In conclusion, may I turn the tables on you a bit? How familiar are you with the arguments for ID? Have you read Stephen Meyers’ “Signature in the Cell”? More importantly, are you familiar with the arguments of eminent theologians? Are you familiar with the works of, say, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Owens, John Bunyan, C. H. Spurgeon, J. Gresham Machen, or Francis Shaeffer? Or, more contemporarily, have you bothered to familiarize yourself with the positions of Christian apologists such as Alistar McGrath, R. Albert Mohler, John Lennox, Peter Jones, D. A. Carson, G. K. Beale, Dinesh D’Souza, Ravi Zacharias, R. C. Sproul, or Mark Dever?

In the end, I have bothered to familiarize myself with “your side” of these issues. I am quite familiar with the positions of the leading proponents of DET and the New Atheism. Have you bothered to do the same with proponents on “my side” of these issues?

May the road rise up to meet you.

CORNBREAD,

You state: “You have already arrived at a conclusion (i.e. the existence of an intelligent designer) and have in the course of this discussion mischaracterized the relevant science (e.g. your use of the term "random selection", and as outlined in the above paragraphs) which conflict with your predetermined conclusion. Why should I, an admitted amateur non-scientist, spend time refuting such notions in this forum when it would be much simpler (and decidedly more accurate) for you to just pick up a real science book and read this stuff on your own?”

I can only respond to this by pointing out what should be obvious to you. I have met you (and others) in this forum on the battlefield of your own worldview—The New Atheism and its requisite DET. I admit, along with you, that I am an amateur non-scientist. However, it should be obvious to you that I have more than just a passing understanding of the New Atheism/DET, for the rebuttals to my arguments have ranged from….”but…but…but you are just WRONG…cause…cause…cause evolution is TRUE!!” to “you are ‘mischaracterizing’ the ‘relevant science’”—which may mean nothing more than you just don’t like the terms in which I am framing their (New Atheism/DET) arguments.

The point is, I have contended with you guys on the grounds of your own worldview, in essence fighting with one hand tied behind my back (by my own choice)…and the rebuttals you have offered are weak at best and decidedly unconvincing at the worst.

TBC

CORNBREAD,

One of the basic tenets of debate is that for one to efficiently establish their thesis (or point of view) one must deal with most, if not all, of the arguments of one’s opponent. I must state here that your dialogue with me has been highly selective. You have seldom (if ever) dealt with the whole of my argument (even from within a single post [of mine]). Rather, you select one or two particular statements and call me to task on those points while largely ignoring the argumentation surrounding those points. You then argue, often circularly, against my “isolated” statements. I will offer one case-in-point here:

Your state: “Biological evolutionary science is the study of changes of already living things. Abiogenesis is the study of the processes which may have lead to life. That seems to me to be a fairly obvious, clear-cut delineation.”

Ignoring the fact that I had already established this very “delineation” in my previous post, you further ignore my contention that “abiogenesis” begins with the presupposition of biological evolution and is no less “speculative” than ID. But not to worry, for you then turn around and argue FROM “speculative” abiogenesis TO Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to explain the nature the first life-forms on this planet (abiogenesis)…..and this in spite of the fact that you admit that abiogenesis is “speculative.” And this is not circular argumentation in your mind?

You argue that the “two criteria for ‘life’ are replication and metabolism,’ and that “these criteria may have been satisfied through purely chemical processes on an extremely simple molecular level” though this too is, by your own admission, “speculative.” You see, even though you did not take the whole of my argumentation into consideration you unwittingly prove precisely what I was arguing: That abiogenesis is just as speculative as ID, but, because the scientific community largely (almost exclusively) begins with the presupposition that evolution is undirected (natural selection), abiogenesis is preferred over ID. And this despite the fact that many ID proponents embrace DET—they are just contending that evolution is a directed (intelligent) process rather than an undirected (non-intelligent) process.

(As an aside, the prevailing view that evolution is an undirected process is a painfully obvious misnomer. Recognizing this, evolutionists attribute the “direction” of the evolutionary process to an abstract principle—natural selection. Thus, in contradiction to every known rule of logic, they attribute highly organized and complex information [intelligence] to an abstract principle.)

TBC

RC,

Nope, I'm saying you've made statements about ID that you haven't backed up. There are reams of evidence for evolution.

My problem with ID is that there is no evidence only lots of unanswered questions.

I'm looking to you to supply some of the evidence that has convinced you that ID is a viable, plausible explanation for the myriad of life that we see today. Or, if you prefer, you can answer some of the nagging questions I have about ID, supplied in an earlier post.

The choice is yours.

TW,

So...you are saying that you want to resort to "sound-bite" apologetics rather than take the time to lay a foundation of rational thought and build a structure of reason from which to draw conclusions?

Just want to make sure before I proceed.

RC, I'm back. Had a little problem with internet connectivity today. Both cable lines coming into my house were knocked out of service during a severe thunderstorm.

Me thinks, based on your responses to my "most excellent" questions that you would prefer to dance around the issues rather than confront them. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis and seem intent on discussing one without the other. That's fine, but the vast majority of this column has been a discussion of evolution. So why don't you come out of the closet and give us your thoughts concerning evolution: Do you think there's an intelligent designer(s) out there that put all this into motion and then stepped away or do you think there are designer(s) that are still guiding the process today and evolution as we know it, doesn't exist?

I've asked a number of questions which you seemed to indicate were reasonable. So give it a shot because from this software guy's perspective, from the halls of Geekdom, if this universe was designed by something other than natural selection (living things), the designer must work for some government bureau.

Most of your posts are taunting without showing us the beef. Why don't you take a stab at answering my silly questions or show me your evidence for ID. You've demonstrated that you're articulate, but you've talked around the issues rather than addressed the issues.

It's time to put up or shut up brother.

TW

RCofield:

One last thought -- promise.

I completely agree that the scientific method is an obstacle to evolutionary theory, but then again it's supposed to be an obstacle to all scientific hypotheses. I also think that it's an insurmountable obstacle to any hypothesis, such as ID, that can't be falsified or tested. You may have an unassailable philosophical argument for disbelieving evolution, but without the data to support it, it really isn't any more than that.

I can appreciate that you want to have a discussion in order to "hone your apologetic" skills, as you put it. While I'm flattered that you might consider me a competent foil for that purpose, I can assure you, as far as my participation is concerned, you might as well be debating Bozo the Clown. Accordingly, you might want to check out the following websites. They all have discussion areas and vast archives going over all of the topics I've trampled upon the past few days. I'd post the URLs, but WaPo doesn't like posting multiple links.

richarddawkins.net

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com

scienceblogs.com/Pharyngula (be sure to wear your asbestos underpants here)

thepandasthumb.org

talkorigins.org

Good luck!

RCofield:

Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Ken Miller are two very accomplished and well-respected scientists. They both firmly believe in directed evolution on philosophical and theological grounds. Do you really think they couldn't get a paper supporting ID past peer-review if they had any sound empirical data ?

RCofield:

This will definitely be my last post on this topic.

Biological evolutionary science is the study of changes of already living things. Abiogenesis is the study of the processes which may have lead to life. That seems to me to be a fairly obvious, clear-cut delineation.

As I understand it, it is generally accepted that two criteria for "life" are replication and metabolism. Though speculative, current science seems to indicate that both of these criteria may have been satisfied through purely chemical processes on an extremely simple molecular level -- tens of millions of years before the appearance of more complex RNA/DNA-bearing cellular life. Positing that "life" began with complex RNA/DNA-bearing cellular life fits nicely with your presupposition of an intelligent designer, but it ignores eons of preceding evolutionary development from the first very simple "living" (i.e. replicating/metabolizing) structures.

In answer to your last question to me:

You have already arrived at a conclusion (i.e. the existence of an intelligent designer) and have in the course of this discussion mischaracterized the relevant science (e.g. your use of the term "random selection", and as outlined in the above paragraphs) which conflict with your predetermined conclusion. Why should I, an admitted amateur non-scientist, spend time refuting such notions in this forum when it would be much simpler (and decidedly more accurate) for you to just pick up a real science book and read this stuff on your own?

By way of suggestion you might try Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Out of curiosity, I have one question for you and I won't be responding to your answer. How old do you think the universe is?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

When I called you to task for misrepresenting your critique of Christianity by quoting your first post on this thread, you responded by stating:

“In my comment about Jesus at the beginning of this thread, I was trying to imitate the humor of Steve Martin. It's called a joke; look it up. I am not anti-Christian as far as sincere relgious belief is concerned but I am a little tired of mental conformity to rigid religious dogma as expressed in menacing political movements, like God is a Republican, or God is an American, and that goes equally, if not more, for Islam.”

So…let me quote you from some of your posts:

“I don't think that Cal Thomas is very interested in any of this stuff. He has got Jesus, case closed, on every topic, issue and question.”

“It is a little bit rude to assert the superiority of your religion on an international forum. Cal doesn't get it, and apparently, many readers don't either.”

“I fully expect to hear replies from the Born-Againers that they take it as a matter of pride to be rude, when it is saving people's souls that is at stake. But likewise, such a statement is also rude, as well as ignorant.”

“Christianity is dominant in America. I hardly think it takes any courage to "come out" as a Christian. If you think it does, then you must be paranoid.”

“Perhaps, if you do not really understand science, you should not comment on it. That is the favorite retort of Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, and many other conservatively relgious individuals.”

So….in your estimation, Christians: Are confused, closed-minded, rude, ignorant, paranoid, and don’t “get it”?! Were you “joking” when you made these statements? No discerning reader will be put off by such weak deflection on your part.

You see the problem with trying to be deceptive about your position—when you have stated your position in writing—is that it is too easy to get caught in your own web. Not all Christians are as ignorant as you would like to believe.

And hypocrisy is just as unbecoming to the religion of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as it is to Christianity.

Peace brother

TW,

You stated: “Don't forget, I'd like to meet your symbolic Q in person, if that can be arranged. Surely an intelligent designer capable of defining the laws of physics, could make an appearance. Engage Number 1!”

Science-fiction references aside :), I have a tongue-in-cheek (well, maybe just a little tongue-in-cheek) question for you. Have you ever met Thutmuse III, the Egyptian Pharaoh (1479-1425 BC)?......If not, do you believe he ever existed? If so, on what evidence do you base that belief?

I am not looking to fully develop this line of reasoning right now. Just throwing it out there as food for thought to be considered later in our discussion.

TW,

And then there were only…..two. Looks like we may have this thing to ourselves. If that is the case it certainly makes things a great deal less difficult for me. I have had to juggle as many as 5 different people disagreeing with me at the same time.

I think what is happening here is evidence that, for the most part, people are not genuinely interested in a meaningful conversation about religious issues and that is, after all, the stated purpose of this discussion board. : ) We live in a “sound-bite” world, and far too many want to “settle” important issues using a “sound-bite” approach.

In the event that any of the others who have been involved here want to jump back into the discussion, I would request that you do me the honor of either accepting or rejecting my thesis as stated in my post on July 16, 2010 12:35 PM. If you disagree with said thesis, please give argumentation against it.

TW, I like the line of questioning you have used in your most recent posts. They are good questions, and good questions beg good answers.

However, I would like to suggest that we may be getting ahead of ourselves a bit here. Your questions are seeking responses that necessarily require one—regardless of which side of the issue one is on—to draw some rather dramatic conclusions. If you or I either one make such dramatic conclusions without first laying a rational foundation for those conclusions, we will wind up dismissing one another without having learned anything whatsoever. I know that is not what I want from this discussion, and I don’t get the impression you want that either.

So….I would like to start with your response to my thesis statement and discuss it point by point. I believe such a discussion will eventually lead to reasonable, rational, and yes, even logical answers for the questions that we both have.

Whaddaya think?

May the Force be with you.

CORNBREAD,

In response to my argument that the peer review system of the scientific community is a rather circular system (and, hence, somewhat “closed”), you offer the following:

“Who would you rather have review scientific issues -- plumbers? (No offense to plumbers intended.) ID hasn't failed to get past the review process because those mean old scientists reject it out of hand; it hasn't gotten past the review process because it doesn't have any data to evaluate and arguments from credulity don't carry any weight.”

Many (if not most) of the ID proponents hold the exact same FOUNDATIONAL PRESUPPOSITION as the abiogenesis scientists—DET. As you are no doubt aware, abiogenesis proponents are having no problem getting their scientific “research” published in peer-review journals. You are equally aware that ID proponents cannot get their research published in said journals.

Why is this the case? Because ID is contending that the evidence points to evolution being a DIRECTED process and the “scientific community” insists (without ANY evidence established by the scientific method) that it is an UNDIRECTED process. In other words, ID is pushing the arbitrarily-set boundaries established by the SC….and the cronyism-rife peer review system is a convenient way for the SC to exclude the ID hypothesis.

In conclusion, your dismissal of ID—on the basis of their having no peer-reviewed papers published—lacks credibility because it appeals to a secondary means of verification that is insular in nature.

CORNBREAD,

I do want to respond to the last post you offered before withdrawing.

After giving supporting argumentation, I had stated my conclusion that when it comes to the issue of origin, the scientific method is every bit the same obstacle for macro-evolution as it is for ID. You responded by stating:

“If evolutionary theory attempted to address the origin of life (abiogenesis) you'd have a point, but since it only attempts to explain how life evolves after it kicked off, you don't. You're conflating two different areas of study.”

I think I do have a rather valid point. DET is the FOUNDAITONAL PRESUPPOSITION of the branch of “science” known as “abiogenesis.” In other words, abiogenesis assumes DET, and that is the starting point of its inquiry into the origin of life. So, I disagree with your contention that I am “conflating two different areas of study.”

But, let’s assume that abiogenesis scientists did discover a reasonably plausible explanation of how the first life-form on this planet appeared (presumably by some combination of inorganic chemicals taking place under ideal circumstances). A significant scientific problem would still exist. This first life form would—according to their stated presupposition—be made up of heavily information-coded DNA/RNA. And they still would not have explained for us where all this (massive amount, even in a most simple life-form) information came from. Nor would they have explained the moving cause of the “ideal circumstances” under which this supposed first life-form came into existence.

Consequently, I stand by my conclusion that when it comes to the issue of origin, the scientific method is every bit the same obstacle for macro-evolution as it is for ID.

TBC

CORNBREAD,

Hate to see you go. Before you do, would you mind my asking what you perceived about our discussion that would cause you to withdraw?

I won't be participating further. I don't see much point in rehashing arguments that have been laid out in this forum and myriad other places for the past several years.

Have good ones.

RC,

Excellent. Don't forget, I'd like to meet your symbolic Q in person, if that can be arranged. Surely an intelligent designer capable of defining the laws of physics, could make an appearance. Engage Number 1!

TW,

Always good to be missed.

I will, for the time being, refrain from answering your post except to say that my thesis is definitely not tangential to the discussion we have been having.

Let's wait for some of the others to respond. I am all but certain there will be an interesting pattern develop here.

RCOfield, I did miss you. Your summary, as well stated as it is enclosed herein for your convenience.....slap!!! Sorry about the lingo. I was just reviewing a service agreement.

This is my thesis: Science CANNOT answer questions of the ORIGIN of life on this planet, it cannot define for us the MEANING of our existence, it cannot codify MORALITY for us, and it cannot, in any way, give us any insight concerning our ultimate DESTINY.

I beg to differ with you on point one. Science has not yet defined the circumstances causing life to form but to say cannot is way to pessimistic for me. I believe that within my life time (58 now), science will be able to cause primitive life to spontaneously be generated.

The meaning of our existence is a personal thing. George Steinbrenner wanted to own the most successful sports team of all times. Winning the world series was his goal and when that occurred, as far as he was concerned, it brought meaning to his life.

I don't think what brings meaning to your life has anything to do with science just like what makes you personally happy is unrelated to science.

Again, since morality is a personal thing, I agree, despite the rants of previous republican administrations (remember, "I know pornography when I see it") you can't quantify morality because it differs from person to person.

But, all your conclusions have little to do with evolution. In that vein I side with Daniel in that the science backing evolution is compelling, well supported and backed by mounds of evidence.

I suspect you've gone off on a little tangent, back to the past as opposed to the future, and have been arguing about things unrelated to evolution yet criticizing evolution in the process.

If your purpose is to discuss the "meaning of life issues" then fine. But don't confuse those with evolution. And then, give me some evidence supporting your claims of intelligent design. I've love to understand where the designer -- or "Q" came from.

Hey Guys,

Miss me? :)

Sorry for the long absence. I passed out from exhaustion last night. Doc (TW), I don't even think that 1,000 “jiga-watts” of electricity would have brought me back from the land of nod. (I know, that was weak. :) )

To TW and CORNBREAD, you guys are keeping me on my toes, and I am enjoying dialogging with you.

DANEIL....I'm just not sure where you are coming from. First, you take offense that I don't completely agree with DET and its derivative science, but you refuse to debate it with me because it is “settled” both in your mind and in the scientific community. I then point out that we may have some common ground based on your statement that you are interested in discussing what “causes belief,” “what is knowledge,” and how we determine “truth.” These are epistemological matters (addressing HOW we arrive at knowledge/truth, etc.), so I ask you to discuss with me how we (epistemologically) determine morality/immorality. You respond by saying “Why would I answer a question like that from you, when the subject is the science of evolution, which has nothing to do with morality, and from a person who is not interested in finding out what is true...”

So.....you won't discuss evolution with me....and you won't discuss epistemology with me (because the subject is the science of evolution??!!)....so.....what do you want to discuss?

Guys, let me try to sum up what I am saying. This is my thesis: Science CANNOT answer questions of the ORIGIN of life on this planet, it cannot define for us the MEANING of our existence, it cannot codify MORALITY for us, and it cannot, in any way, give us any insight concerning our ultimate DESTINY.

One simple question for all of you (SECULAR, BUCKMINSTRJ, CORNBREAD, TWMATTHEWS, and DANIELINTHELIONSDEN). Have I given you sufficient argumentation to convince you that my above stated thesis is correct?

RCOfield,

Still waiting for answers to my questions so that I can formulate the appropriate responses. And don't tell me about long days. I own a software company and spend 8 straight hours debugging a problem.

I just finished eating. Come on. You've got the energy. The ball is in your court "Marty".

RC

I have been trying to help you understand. The fact that I accept the consensus of opinion of science is not meant to be a dig at you, personally.

You only seem interested in gotcha and one-ups-manship. If your only purpose in going to college is to shut the mouth of the professor, and if you believe that higher education is just a conspiracy to undermine "theism," and if you think science is just one giant elitest fraud, then why do you want to go to college?

In my comment about Jesus at the beginning of this thread, I was trying to imitate the humor of Steve Martin. It's called a joke; look it up. I am not anti-Christian as far as sincere relgious belief is concerned but I am a little tired of mental conformity to rigid religious dogma as expressed in menacing political movements, like God is a Republican, or God is an American, and that goes equally, if not more, for Islam.

You asked me where I derive my moral beliefs from. Why would I answer a question like that from you, when the subject is the science of evolution, which has nothing to do with morality, and from a person who is not interested in finding out what is true, but in lowering the boom on other people and proving trivial inconsistencies in off-the-top-of-the-head comments.

Hey hey hey everybody. Heads up. TW is onto something here in his post of 3:33 PM.

He states: "In reading your latest, you are not saying evolution is incorrect are you? I interpreted your comments to indicate that evolution is a poor explanation for the origin of life and for morality."

Oh so close. A little more groundwork and this discussion could get really interesting.

As a side-note, I want to ask you guys to bear with me. I am working from the distinct disadvantage of not having a higher education (whereas I think most of you are not). As a result, I know I come across as rather abrasive at times, though that is not always my intention. When I read back over my posts earlier today I cringed a bit, especially when I read those to DANIELINTHELIONSDEN. So, in the spirit of our common monkeyhood :), please accept my sincere apology for those times where I have been offensive. I will try to do better.

Looooong day today. See you guys tomorrow.

When it comes to the issue of origin, the scientific method is every bit the same obstacle for macro-evolution as it is for ID. RCofield

If evolutionary theory attempted to address the origin of life (abiogenesis) you'd have a point, but since it only attempts to explain how life evolves after it kicked off, you don't. You're conflating two different areas of study.

For scientific research to be considered credible within the scientific community it must be reviewed and critiqued by the scientific community. If, however, your research disagrees with the acceptable parameters set by the scientific, OR if you push the boundaries of what is considered “acceptable” scientific method (paradoxically, again, established by the scientific community), OR if your research contradicts “settled” science….then your research will not be published in the journals of the scientific community….and your work will not become a part of the “consensus” of the scientific community. RCofield

Who would you rather have review scientific issues -- plumbers? (No offense to plumbers intended.) ID hasn't failed to get past the review process because those mean old scientists reject it out of hand; it hasn't gotten past the review process because it doesn't have any data to evaluate and arguments from credulity don't carry any weight.

Thanks for the discussion.

RCofield

Great.

You win.

Evolution is not true.

It's preposterous!

Science is preposterous.

sigh!! Another correction.

2. Why would an intelligent designer create an eye so that it required a brain (the human eye) to invert the image because the lens inverts the image initially?

To RCOfield:

Here are my problems with ID:
First, any "designer" capable of designing the universe, life, the laws of physics, etc. could have done a much better job. Given that knowledge I could do a better job.

So are you saying the universe was "designed" and then left to evolve on its own?

Here are additional questions I would have for an intelligent designer:

1. Is there only one ID or is there an entire race of designers? In other words, is there a God-like figure or is the universe filled with the "Q". (Warning: Cultural reference to Star Trek the Next Generation)

2. Would would an intelligent designer create an eye so that it required a brain (the human eye) to invert the image because the lens inverts the image initially?

3. Why do I have a tail bone and muscle remnants that strongly resemble the tail bone structure of apes?

4. Having paid for knee surgery for my oldest son, who has dislocated his knees numerous times; why in the world would anyone design a knee / muscle structure like the one we have?

5. If you take Gene #2 and split it apart, our gene structure will almost perfectly match apes giving one the impression that at some point in our distant past, we had an unfused gene #2 sharing a common ancestry with the great apes. Why in the world would an intelligent designer go to all that trouble which is perfectly understandably in light of evolution?

More to come....

Correction. The third paragraph should read:

But let's examine a few of your points and first, before responding, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your position.

RCOfield,

First of all brother, let me complement you on your humor. Even if we disagree -- you were thinking Back to the Future while I was thinking slime and Ghost Busters -- we can both learn something from each other.

I'm also hesitant to write too long a response since my last three detailed attempts were handily rejected.

But let's example a few of your points and first, before responding, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding your position.

In reading your latest, you are not saying evolution is incorrect are you? I interpreted your comments to indicate that evolution is a poor explanation for the origin of life and for morality.

Or are you saying that evolution itself -- variations in DNA over time where those traits most compatible with the environment are preserved and passed on while those incompatible are discarded -- is itself a poor explanation for what is happening?

TWMATTHEWS,

You state (humorously): "I think that's a great idea and much like crossing the streams in Ghost Busters, sending contradictory evidence may in fact end all life as we know it; at least in this universe."

I was actually thinking of some of the conversations between Doc and Marty in the Back to the Future series, but the Ghost Busters thing works equally well if not better. :)

But, all humor aside, what think ye? Have I argued effectively enough to convince you that the ID/DET controversy is (on both sides) rational in nature rather than scientific?

If not, what are the weaknesses in my apologetic?

Peace brother

Daniel,

You ask: "What is it about evolution that bothers you so much that you don't believe any of it?"

I am just convinced that it is preposterously wrong from every conceivable perspective (scientifically, morally, philosophically, apologetically, rationally, logically, theologically, anthropologically, cosmologically, teleologically, ontologically...you name it). You did say I could believe anything I wanted to, didn't you?

If you would maybe do a little better job defending it as your position you might make a little headway with me...but wait...I forgot. It's already "settled" in your mind, so you don't have to defend it...

I think G. K. Chesterton may have summed it up as well as anybody when he said:

"Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. It is the suicide of thought."

I concur.

Peace brother.

Hey Cornbread,

Something I meant to include in my post in response to the problems with ID.

You state: "In fact, from what I read, the scientific method is such an obstacle to ID that its proponents now argue that "special revelation" should be admitted "evidence".

Again, the same general argument can be turned around on the proponents of macro-evolution. It would go something like this:

From what I read the scientific method is such an obstacle for those who try to establish scientific evidence for the origin (first life-form) of DET (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory)that some of its proponents now argue that speculation about "Extra-terrestrial Beings" should be admitted as "evidence." (i.e. Richard Dawkins). (I know. Some of you will argue that he didn't offer it as evidence...but you will still be left with the problem of having no rational explanation of ORIGIN...just as Richard so obviously is.)

You see, every argument that DET proponents use against ID proponents can be turned around and argued the other way with equal effectiveness. And some people don't think God has a sense of humor. :)

The reality that many on this thread are avoiding is simply this: ID, in its most basic form, is only arguing that an "intelligent designer" is a more rational explanation of the almost infinite complexity of the cosmos than is blind chance" (or, if you prefer, Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" or "ET may have dun it"). They (ID) have no empirical evidence to substantiate their theory of ORIGIN....but neither does DET. (Now some of you will jump in here and try to offer "evidence" of origin, but don't forget that you are tethered to your "scientific method.")

In the end, this is an argument about ORIGIN. And, as neither side has any evidence arrived at by the "scientific method," the argument can only proceed along the lines of logic, reason, and rationality. And theism is WAY ahead of the curve on the "scientific community" there. From the standpoint of cogent apologetics, "ET dun it" REALLY needs a lot of work. (lol)

Virtually everyone on this thread has admitted (in some form or other) that science CANNOT answer the "big" questions of mankind concerning origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. But I will enter into a friendly wager with you. I will bet you dollars to donuts that after this post someone (or several "someones") will jump in and try to do exactly that--answer these "big" questions from a purely DET/scientific perspective. And I will be here waiting for you.

We'll see.

RCOfield said, "If my calculations are correct, at the exact moment the two sets of evidence cross in the mail the flux-capacitor of this planet will come unhinged, the universe will begin to gyrate uncontrolably, and the entire galaxy will spiral into a black hole....and nobody will ever be able to say to anyone else "I told you so!"

I think that's a great idea and much like crossing the streams in Ghost Busters, sending contradictory evidence may in fact end all life as we know it; at least in this universe.

TWMATTHEWS,

You state: "Send along your scientific evidence for an intelligent designer if you have any."

Why don't we do it this way. Let's agree on a specific date. On that date I'll mail you my scientifc evidence for an intelligent designer. On the same date, you mail me your scientific evidence for the first life-form that originated on this planet (you know, the one from which we all evolved).

If my calculations are correct, at the exact moment the two sets of evidence cross in the mail the flux-capacitor of this planet will come unhinged, the universe will begin to gyrate uncontrolably, and the entire galaxy will spiral into a black hole....and nobody will ever be able to say to anyone else "I told you so!"

Whaddaya think? :)

Daniel,

You never responded to this, so I'll re-post it.

What do you “believe” about morality? Is it absolute, or is it a cultural/social construct? What “causes” your “beliefs” about morality? And, how do you “know” that your “knowledge” about morality/immorality is “true”?

Daniel,

You state: “As far as I know, Sam Harris is not a scientist.”

He does, in fact, hold a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA with published research in said field. When this fact is coupled with the remainder of your statement in your opening paragraph you unwittingly validate my contentions about the relationship of philosophy to science.

Further, you contradicted yourself again in your response (paragraph 3) to my question about the ID movement in the scientific community.

Additionally, you state: “My criticisms of Christianity have been of the politically driven anti-gay agenda of some Christian groups. My criticisms have been almost exclusively along those lines. If you think that an anti-gay agenda is central to a Christian's core beliefs, then, yes maybe you might misinterpret my opinions as being anti-Christian.”

In response I will simply quote your first post on this thread:

“No Jesus isn't the real thing; it's Mohammed; no, no, that's not right ... it's not Mohammed; it's Bhudda; no! that's not right either ... it's Moses ... it's gotta be Moses ... no, no, that's not it ... no it's, let's see, is it Confuscious? No! It's Gamesh ... is that right ... Thor? Zeus? Lucifer? No it can't be Lucifer ... he's the bad guy ... it says so right in the Apollo Creed ... “ ………….

You state: “There is no good philosophical explanation describing why science works. But it does. And there is no easy way to understand or explain how a valid scientific consensus of opinion forms. But it does.”

Yes, brother! It is amazing, magical even! Gloooory Hallelujah! Can I get an AMEN from some of the brothers and sisters in the choir?!!......Isn't this religion of scientism wonderful?!! Praise Darwin!! Can I get a witneeeeesssss?!!!

You state: “You have a lot to learn, or at least, to sort out”

…….Nope. Too easy. Not gonna say anything. I’ll just let that one slide.

You keep coming at me with these inane, self-contradicting, elitist arguments and I’ll just keep spanking you.

Daniel,

You state: “As far as I know, Sam Harris is not a scientist.”

He does, in fact, hold a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA with published research in said field. When this fact is coupled with the remainder of your statement in your opening paragraph you unwittingly validate my contentions about the relationship of philosophy to science.

Further, you contradicted yourself again in your response (paragraph 3) to my question about the ID movement in the scientific community.

Additionally, you state: “My criticisms of Christianity have been of the politically driven anti-gay agenda of some Christian groups. My criticisms have been almost exclusively along those lines. If you think that an anti-gay agenda is central to a Christian's core beliefs, then, yes maybe you might misinterpret my opinions as being anti-Christian.”

In response I will simply quote your first post on this thread:

“No Jesus isn't the real thing; it's Mohammed; no, no, that's not right ... it's not Mohammed; it's Bhudda; no! that's not right either ... it's Moses ... it's gotta be Moses ... no, no, that's not it ... no it's, let's see, is it Confuscious? No! It's Gamesh ... is that right ... Thor? Zeus? Lucifer? No it can't be Lucifer ... he's the bad guy ... it says so right in the Apollo Creed ... “ ………….

You state: “There is no good philosophical explanation describing why science works. But it does. And there is no easy way to understand or explain how a valid scientific consensus of opinion forms. But it does.”

Yes, brother! It is amazing, magical even! Gloooory Hallelujah! Can I get an AMEN from some of the brothers and sisters in the choir?!!......Isn't this religion of scientism wonderful?!! Praise Darwin!! Can I get a witneeeeesssss?!!!

You state: “You have a lot to learn, or at least, to sort out”

…….Nope. Too easy. Not gonna say anything. I’ll just let that one slide.

You keep coming at me with these inane, self-contradicting, elitist arguments and I’ll just keep spanking you.

Cornbread,

You state: “While the Discovery Institute has many credentialed fellows not many of these have credentials in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, genetics or bio-chemistry. And, unless I'm mistaken, no ID proponent, in any field, has ever had a peer-reviewed paper supporting ID published in any relevant journal. You can disavow me of that notion by pointing me to any such peer-reviewed paper.”

First, to say of ID fellows that “not many of these have credentials in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, genetics or bio-chemistry” is to make a rather subjective statement. How many is “many” and whether their credentials are “relevant” to the stated fields of science probably comes down to a matter of personal opinion. This statement needs further development and examination, but even then may not be “relevant” :) to what I will ultimately contend on this forum.

But, ahhh! The old “peer reviewed” argument! This is circular reasoning by the scientific community at its “best.” It goes (loosely) something like this: For scientific research to be considered credible within the scientific community it must be reviewed and critiqued by the scientific community. If, however, your research disagrees with the acceptable parameters set by the scientific, OR if you push the boundaries of what is considered “acceptable” scientific method (paradoxically, again, established by the scientific community), OR if your research contradicts “settled” science….then your research will not be published in the journals of the scientific community….and your work will not become a part of the “consensus” of the scientific community.

Every scientist who has ever tried to gain recognition for his/her body of research has cursed the peer review system at one point or another. Most of them just don’t talk about it because they can’t afford to. And if the peer review system (a relatively recent development) had existed from the infancy of scientific inquiry we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

So, yes you are correct that no ID proponent in any field has ever had a peer-reviewed paper published in any relevant journal. Go figure.

Peace brother

Hey Cornbread,

Good to hear from you. You seem to be one of the few on this thread that is actually doing some “homework” before you post. You raise a couple of respectable (although not iron-clad) arguments.

You state: “ID isn't a scientific theory. It's barely more than speculation. It can't be falsified and it makes no testable predictions. In fact, from what I read, the scientific method is such an obstacle to ID that its proponents now argue that "special revelation" should be admitted "evidence".

The same argument you raise against ID can be turned around and leveled against macro-evolution. ID is problematic for the scientific community because it addresses ORIGIN. Ironically, macro-evolution is equally problematic when it comes to the issue of ORIGIN. There exists no research whatsoever that identifies (through the application of the scientific method) how the first life-form on this planet (from which we all supposedly evolved) came into existence, or ORIGINATED. All the discussion concerning this first life-form is “barely more than speculation,” and I have yet to hear a proposed solution for this problem that can falsified. When it comes to the issue of origin, the scientific method is every bit the same obstacle for macro-evolution as it is for ID.

I have had the same problem posting. This thread evidently has some glitches.

Sorry Rcofield,

I am unable to post my comments. It seems my reply was either too long or I must have used some words that set off a flag. Repeated attempts to send comments have met with "we are reviewing...." messages.

RCofield

As far as I know, Sam Harris is not a scientist. If you do not agree with his philosophical speculations, or if you think that he regards evolution as a religion, then you are perfectly entitled to reject his opinions in favor of your own, which may just as valid. But your dispute with Sam Harris or any other philosophers has nothing to do with the formation of scientific consensus of opinon on evolution, or on anything else.

You said,

" ... you saying that there is no ID movement within the scientific community involving credentialed scientists?"

Yes, that is what I am saying. A credentialed scientist can promote a religious movement within the scientific community or any other community, but that does not make it science, and it is not likely to sway consensus of scientific opinion.

My criticisms of Christianity have been of the politically driven anti-gay agenda of some Christian groups. My criticisms have been almost exclusively along those lines. If you think that an anti-gay agenda is central to a Christian's core beliefs, then, yes maybe you might misinterpret my opinions as being anti-Christian.

Science is not philosophy and it is not religion. It is a methodolgy. Science consists of a self-aware intelligence, analyzing the order of the world. The nature of this intelligence, of this order and of this world is unknown. There is no good philosophical explanation describing why science works. But it does. And there is no easy way to understand or explain how a valid scientific consensus of opinion forms. But it does.

You have a lot to learn, or at least, to sort out.

Daniel,

For the most part you are not responding to my argumentation and are only reiterating what you have already said, so this will not be a lengthy reply.

Your arguments are often contradictory within themselves (see paragraph 5 in part II of your 2:17 PM post). I have already pointed out some of the inconsistencies in your apparent positions on “scientific consensus” and epistemology and philosophy as they relate to science. I will leave it to others who may read these posts to sort out whose arguments are more cogent on these points.

You did, however, make 2 statements in your last post that caught my attention.

You state: “My interest is in what causes belief, and what is knowledge, since you know you are right, and I know I am right, who is right, and how can either of us know?” and “I am interested in forming a valid image of the world which is true…”

We may have some common ground here. These are epistemological questions (questions that ask HOW we arrive at belief/knowledge/truth etc.) and this is what I have been driving at from the moment I entered this discussion.

As morality has been the topic of much of my discussion so far, I pose these questions to you:

What do you “believe” about morality? Is it absolute, or is it a cultural/social construct? What “causes” your “beliefs” about morality? And, how do you “know” that your “knowledge” about morality/immorality is “true”?

In answering these questions you must be VERY careful not to appeal to any tenet of DET, for you have already stated unequivocally that we “cannot look to science for a valid moral code.”

I await your reply.

RCofield:

ID isn't a scientific theory. It's barely more than speculation. It can't be falsified and it makes no testable predictions. In fact, from what I read, the scientific method is such an obstacle to ID that its proponents now argue that "special revelation" should be admitted "evidence".

While the Discovery Institute has many credentialed fellows not many of these have credentials in fields relevant to evolutionary biology, genetics or bio-chemistry. And, unless I'm mistaken, no ID proponent, in any field, has ever had a peer-reviewed paper supporting ID published in any relevant journal. You can disavow me of that notion by pointing me to any such peer-reviewed paper.

twmatthews,

Welcome to the discussion, and thanks for your input.

If you will read my posts you will find that I never stated that I was a high school student....:)

I think I have responded to one degree or another to most of the issues you raise. If you will read my posts from the beginning and follow my discussion with BUCKMINSTRJ you may better understand where I'm coming from.

You are right in your assesment that I have been (at least to this point) arguing on the grounds of how we arrive at morality. DET cannot address the issue of morality/immorality, though there are some in the sceintific community who are beginning to tell us it can (i.e. Sam Harris). That has largely been the subject matter of my discussion with BUCKMINSTRJ.

How do you contend that we determine what is moral/immoral? You seem to insinuate that it is a cultural construct in your post. Could you bring some examples of culturally constructed morality into the discussion so that we might examine them?

You, along with Daniel, seem to be unaware of the ID movement within the scientific community. May I ask what papers you have read that were written by scientists who are contending for the ID theory? And, are you saying that there is no ID movement within the scientific community involving credentialed scientists?

RCofield

What is it about evolution that bothers you so much that you don't believe any of it?

... the last paragraph was left-over editing which I forgot to delete ...

RCofield

Part I

First of all, I am a little older than you are. I claimed to be old because I thought that you were 17, because that is the impression that you gave. I can only go by what you say.

You are conflating science and philosophy. Science is not philosophy and philsophy is not science. Why should I debate evolution with you? It is not my idea to debate. It is science. If you care to find out about it, you do not need me to tell you about it. It is settled in my mind, not yours.

My interest is not in things like is evolution true or not. My interest is in what causes belief, and what is knowledge, since you know you are right, and I know I am right, who is right, and how can either of us know?

I said that there is a settled scientific consensus of opinon on the matter of evolution. That is a true statement. It is not pretentious and it does not make science unassaiblable; you are as free as anyone to contest settled science with new information. But that is not what you are doing; you are engaging in a complicated discusiion conflating religion, science, and philosophy, and you are free to do that with anyone who will debate you; it just happens that I am not one of those people, since this type of arguing does not interest me.

Since science is not religion, it is mute on the subject of God. There are scientists who believe in God, and scientists who do not. But there is no scientific debate, discusion, or consensus of opinion on the existence or nature of God. Scientists who believe in God are expressing a religious, not scientific belief, and scientists who debate the nature of God are expressing philosophical views, not scientific views. Even scientists can have opinions and views, which are not scientific. Evotution is not anti-theistic, and does not try to get you or anyone to believe in God or not to believe in God. On all these things, you are confused.

Part II

I am interested in forming a valid image of the world, which is true, and evolution is a part of that truth, which I derive from observing the scientific consensus of opinion on evolution. For me, scientific consensus of opinion has credibility. For you it does not; that is according your inner will, which I have no interest in tinkering with. The consensus of opinion which you hold more credibly than science is conservative religion. If that is the case, then I have no hope of demonstrating to you that the science of evolution is true, since automatically, and reflexively, you do not believe it.

It is not necessary for me to cite why evolution is true, since you do not need me to educate you on this. You are as free as anyone to find out for yourself, or not, according to your choice.

I have never said that the scientific community is above being questioned; that is simply what you read into my statements. I said that I am in agreement with the consensus of opinion of scientists on the matter of evolution.

Science is not philosophy and operates outside of philosophical musings. Epistemolgy is philosophical specualton, which is irrelevant to science. There is much discussion on how science should be done, and why science works. But that is not science. Science goes on despite the philosophical flavor of the month.

Discussions about knowlege, belief, and truth are not part of science. Discussion of morality and ethics are not part of science. Discussion of the nature of God and of natural law are not part of science. There is no epistemological definition of truth that satisfies science; in science, truth is defined by the consensus of scientific opinion, which is not derived from wishing or hoping someting were true, but from clearly demonstrable evidence.

I am not pretending that evolution is settled science; it IS settled science. Intelligent design is junk science not real science; anyone is free to believe in an Intelligent Designer, and many scientists do, but it is not credible science to try and knit this religious belief into science unless you have scientific evidence with enough credibility to influence and change the scientific consensus of opinon on evolution.

You feel completely free to confront the of christians, yet when the tables are turned you want to pretend that evolution is “settled” and unquestionable. That, my friend, is elitist, and if you want to maintain such an untenable position I will take every opportunity you afford me to expose you on this forum.
TBC

To RCOField,

I seriously doubt you are a high school student. Your use of language seems far too mature and precise to originate from someone that young. Never-the-less, you seem to be arguing about morality and not about the science of intelligent design versus evolution.

When Daniel speaks about settled science he accurately describes the state of affairs. The vast inventory of evidence from transition fossils to DNA derivations all point to evolution as the mechanism by which life changes over time and why some species are successful while others are not. You seem to be taking one aspect of the discussion -- that related to morality -- and are trying to argue against evolution as an insufficient explanation for the formation of morals.

Since morals and ethics are more culturally related than biologically, I'm not following most of your argument. Evolution and morals are not related whereas culture and morals are.

Your statement about a growing group of scientists advocating intelligent design is contradicted by my reading of the evidence and papers. Like Daniel said, virtually all articles I've read assume evolution as a fact and no longer seem to spend time arguing the merits of evolution.

I've seen many articles that attempt to explain why a species took a certain evolutionary path; what changes in environment selected for specific traits.

I have yet to read a scientific article claiming that a particular trait must have been designed by an intelligent designer. If you have such articles, give me some links.

Finally, one of the main premises from those advocating intelligent design seems to imply that humans were somehow selected to be the top of the food chain. The older, creationist contingent claimed a "special" relationship with the designer so that he/it gave man dominion over the animals of the world. He also gave man morals.

As we learn more and more about animals that are closest to us from a genetic standpoint, we are finding that many of them shows signs of morals and ethics. There is even instances of punishment by banishment when a member strays from the moral system of the group.

I would conclude that a moral system may well develop with any intelligent group that has learned, over thousands of years, to work together.

The idea that only man has morals seems to be wrong and yet many religions teach just that.

Send along your scientific evidence for an intelligent designer if you have any.

Daniel,

You state: “You are wrong; evolution is settled science; intelligent design is junk science.”

If you want to make (another) unequivocal statement such as this, I have a proposal for you. Why don't you state (and give some means of verification) your credentials as a scientist. I will then post a comparison of your credentials with those of a few scientists who have rejected DET in favor of Intelligent Design. What do you think?

You state: “I did not realize you were a highschool student. I am an old scientist, so the argument is not really fair. My apologies for challengeing a young mind, that is just now hatching from the egg of childhood.”

:) I am not a high school student. I am 46 years old, a husband to my wife of 26 years, a father of 3 children, a grandfather, and have been a modestly successful businessman since I was 22 years old. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I did not have the privilege of attending university after I graduated high school. I now have the means to do so, and am scheduled to begin my “freshman” year on August 17th. I floated the statement to which you are referring to expose the “elitists” on this forum. Consider yourself exposed.

You state: “After you have come out the other end of 4 years in college, then see what you think.”

I know of that to which you refer. Having graduated 1 of my 3 children (the second will graduate next spring) from a major university, I am keenly aware of the efforts of academic elitists to destroy the faith of young theists under their tutelage. I was aware of this before they went off to college, and tried, to the best of my ability, to prepare them for it. By the grace of God my children have “stopped the mouths” of more than a few professors and remain strong christian theists. And yes, there is a degree of fatherly pride in what I just stated, as well as a strong measure of grateful humility God-ward.

So, Daniel, old scientist...do you want to reconsider your position, or will you bow out on this note?

Peace brother

Daniel,

You state: “You're right; I'm not interested in defending settled science; I am interested in debating new ideas.”

Ok. I can accept that. However, trolling a forum on religion, with the apparent intention of castigating christianity seems an odd place to go--and an even more odd approach--if you are interested in debating new scientific ideas. Having read a number of your posts, you will have to forgive me if I doubt your stated motive.

You state: “I realize there is a philosophy of science, but the philosophy of science is not science. And what you are debating and calling DET is not science; it is philosophy. Philosophy, is by nature, speculative; science is not.”

First, I am not so ignorant that I don't understand the difference between philosophy and science. It was you who tried to contend that there was no connection between philosophy and science, and I simply pointed out that such a contention was erroneous. Secondly, I have yet to debate any particular point of DET, for you have yet to clearly articulate one. All I hear from you is that it is “settled” and unassailable, as if that is a sufficient argument to cause me to reject theism and bow (with you) in worshipful adoration of DET science and worldview. You will have to come up with a better sales pitch than that to convince me of your position.

Further, as an “old scientist,” you should be keenly aware that one's worldview (philosophy) can, and often does, have a tremendous bearing on how one “does” science. Your contention that the scientific community is somehow “above” being questioned concerning the basic epistemology behind their scientific findings smacks of elitism. You feel completely free to confront the epistemology of christians, yet when the tables are turned you want to pretend that evolution is “settled” and unquestionable. That, my friend, is elitist, and if you want to maintain such an untenable position I will take every opportunity you afford me to expose you on this forum.

TBC

RCofield

You're right; I'm not interested in defending settled science; I am interested in debating new ideas.

I realize there is a philosophy of science, but the philosophy of science is not science. And what you are debating and calling DET is not science; it is philosophy. Philosophy, is by nature, speculative; science is not.

You are wrong; evolution is settled science; intelligent design is junk science. h

I did not realize you were a highschool student. I am an old scientist, so the argument is not really fair. My apologies for challengeing a young mind, that is just now hatching from the egg of childhood.

After you have come out the other end of 4 years in college, then see what you think.

test

Buck,

Can't believe I finally got those last 4 posts to go through. There was something in them (other than length/regularity) that kept kicking them to the moderator. I had to keep modifying them until I got them to go through. Still don't know what the problem was.

Anyway, they obviously should be read in sequence from bottom to top.

Talk to you soon.

Shalom

Kant’s Categorical Imperative? It is interesting that you should refer to this as an example of how morality can exist without a supernatural authority. Though apparently agnostic in his later years, the brilliant Kant saw humans as possessing a special place in CREATION, and therefore capable of moral agency. This was the seminal presupposition of his Categorical Imperative. Some argue that this is hardly more than a philosophical exposition of the Golden Rule (some of the earliest forms of which are found, incidentally, in the formative documents of the Hebrew Old Testament—you know…, the Bible).

Unlike many of the New Atheism’s practitioners of Reason, Kant understood both the power and the limitations of Reason. Consider your statement above in light of the following quote from his “Critique of Pure Reason:”

"Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams… ."

Note how he even addresses your conception of morality being affirmed or denied on the basis of what makes us happy. Happiness hinges on morality, not the reverse, according to Kant. And, recognizing the limitations of human Reason, he points you to the absolute necessity of a wise author (Creator) and ruler (Ultimate Moral Authority/Ultimate Determiner of Morality). As if that was not enough, he obliterates your argument by telling you that your reason-based atheistic construct of morality should “be considered as idle dreams.” If you are going to appeal to Kant on this point you have will have to deal with his contention that Reason should “COMPEL (you) to admit such a wise author and ruler.”……Unless, of course, this is part of the Kantian philosophy that you would deem less than “perfect.”

Socratic Ethics? I must confess utter confusion on this one. Why would you, after stating that “there is very, very likely no god,” then direct me to the ethics of a man who worshiped a pantheon of gods….as proof of “how morality can exist without a supernatural moral authority”??? You are going to have to help me out a little here. I aint smellin whatcha steppin in.

Gotta go milk ‘em cows an gather som eggs fer brekfist. Keep yer powdr dry.

Mill’s Utilitarianism?  Good grief, man.  Peter Singer, professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, is one of the modern day advocates of this twisted view of morality who carries Utilitarianism to one of its many horrifying conclusions.  He contends that children are not human until they are self-conscious of their existence (3 or 4 years old?), therefore he sees no problem with disposing of them in the interest of the Utilitarian ideal of “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”  He even admits that if he was the only one responsible for the decision, his mother—who suffers from Alzheimer’s—“might not continue to live.”  And you think this is “infinitely better” that the moral laws of an infinitely holy God?  I would certainly hope such “morality” would be repugnant to you.  Even New Atheist Daniel Dennett has problems with Mill’s Utilitarianism, although, in my opinion, for reasons that completely miss the point.

Although only a dim-witted, uneducated theist who will not officially be a college freshman for another month, I will try to respond to this sarcasm-laden statement as best a poor old country boy can.

Buck,

You state: "You want to know how morality can exist without a supernatural moral authority? In addition to Mill’s utilitarianism (mentioned in the previous post), any college freshman would be happy to point you to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Socratic ethics, etc. Are these worldviews perfect? Of course not. But they’re infinitely better than simply inventing a bunch of rules and then attributing them to a magical being only you can see and hear."

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

You state: "Religious objection to evolution is not new. These objections were immediately raised to oppose evolution. If you have something new to add to you debate on why evolution is wrong, then go ahead and throw it into the conversation."

To date you have not submitted an argument from DET. All I am hearing from you is how "scientific" and "settled" and unassailable it is. You are the one (among others) who has brought evolution into a discussion forum ON RELIGION. Even still, I have no problem with it because evolution is your religion. Just don't be hypocritical about it.

Float something out there yourself. State and defend your position. But wait....it's already "settled" science, so you don't have to.

If I am not mistaken I have seen you jump straddle christians on this forum for making unequivocal statements and then retreating to the position that "you can't question that because the bible/God said it." Yet you are doing the same thing with evolution. Its "settled science" and if anyone dares question it they are being "a bit pretentious."

Come, now.

Peace brother

Buck,

For some reason they will not post my responses to you on Mills, Kant, and Socrates. I've tried everything I know to get them through, but they go to the moderator every time, yet never get posted.

WILL THE OWNER OF THIS BLOG PLEASE GIVE SOME REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MY SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT BEING POSTED??!!

And yes, I am shouting at this point.

Any suggestions, guys?

Buck,

Secondly, would you concede (#3) rather that moral claims derived from DET...MIGHT be epistemologically compromised?
If so, then we would need to discuss whatever evidence might be available to help us understand WHY Darwinian Evolutionary Theory might not be sound in it's conclusions concerning morality. Which would then lead to a discussion of what might be a better foundation for moral principles.

If you will humor me, first read my responses to your proposals concerning Mill's, Kantian, and Socratic ethics. Then, if you will, respond to my questions posed concerning the immorality of murder. Then we can get to where we both want to go (though I think for very different reasons, at least for now).

Oh. Please regard the obvious sarcasm as a (possibly poor) attempt to be humorous.

TBC

Buckminstr!

Man, its good to have you back. I missed the cogency of your arguments in your brief absence, and that ain't sarcasm. :)

I have tried to post a couple of responses to your offerings of Mill's Utilitarianism, Kantian Categorical Imperative, and Socratic Ethics, but for some strange reason they won't post them. I'll maybe try to squeeze them in at the end of this post.

No, I don't think Survival of the Fittest (SOF) will the STATED tenet of Harris' argument, he's far too intelligent for that. But this stuff is becoming so predictable that I will be surprised if his arguments are not traceable back to SOF. We'll see.

I like the “spirit” of your concessions. :) This is a cogent, intellectually astute....fishing expedition....maybe? I ain't bitin', but I do think we may be making more progress than you are giving “us” credit for. Before explaining that, a couple of observations:

First, as I just stated to DANIELINTHELIONSDEN, I don't think that data manipulation/cover-up is the PRIMARY problem in the scientific community (SC), though it is a problem. There have been a few cases where this was true, but I think the larger problem is presuppositional in nature. A ton of the “evidence” for DET is arrived at by interpreting the data FROM a DET predisposition. In other words, if I begin with the fundamental assumptions of DET and then examine the data from that perspective alone, it should be surprising to no one if I make a case for the data supporting DET. The epistemological error here, however, would leave my case open for debate. This is happening on a grand scale in the SC, especially with the astounding discoveries that continue to surface in the study of DNA.

Would you consider revising your concession #2 to reflect the general argumentation of this paragraph?

TBC

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

Glad you could get all that off your chest. Feel better? :)

We're using "DET" as a shortened expression of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

I think you are a little naive when it comes to scientists and the scientific community. To pretend the NOBODY...EVER... manipulates data is to ignore the obvious. At the same time, to maybe ease your mind a little, I don't think that data manipulation is the primary problem when it comes to the science of DET (though it is a problem). The interpretation of the data from a purely DET presupposition is a far more common problem, and is largely where I take issue.

You state: "But for scientists, as a matter of science, it is settled. For you to presume to superimpose your philosophical debate on settled scientific opinion is a bit pretentious, don't you think?" and "Scientists argue back and forth all the time about matters which are in dispute; the absense of argument and dispute is the formation of consensus of opinion."

First, by your own definition of consensus there exists no consensus in the scientific community (SC) on DET. This is a myth perpetrated largely by those (such as yourself) who are not keeping up with the debate within the SC. Again, the fact that a growing number of well-credentialed scientists are abandoning DET and contending for intelligent design should make this quite evident.

Secondly, to contend that philosophy has nothing to do with science (or vise-versa) is erroneous on the face of it. Are you not aware that there is an entire field of study called "Philosophy of Science?" This is nothing more than another weak attempt to close the debate (that's what closed minds do) and insulate your position from any form of examination by those who might disagree with you.

And thirdly, no, it is not pretentious to debate these issues. To debate is to be engaged in the effort to find consensus and common ground. And it appears that you, the "open-minded," evidence loving, "true science is always open to new evidence" evolutionist want to close the debate in the interest of protecting your own position. Still think DET doesn't have a religious element within its ranks?

Finally, do you want to see what real pretentiousness looks like? I'll just quote you:

"You guys are so mixed up."

"But your old, old argument has been rehashed to death, and, I'm sorry, does not constitute "debate." (you don't even know what my argument is yet. :) )

"If you want to know about evolution, I would suggest that instead of reading philosphical interpreations of what evolution might mean, you read about the science of evolution."

Now THAT'S pretentiousness.

Peace brother

You guys are so mixed up.

Anyone can debate anything. It's a free country. You guys can debate evolution all you want. But you are getting your personal debate confused with scientific debate. To you guys, all of the many religious and philosophical specualtions that appeal to evoltion are not settled.

But for scientists, as a matter of science, it is settled. For you to presume to superimpose your philosophical debate on settled scientific opinion is a bit pretentious, don't you think?

You guys are so mixed up.

You guys make it sound like the bulk of scientists are feverishly working on evolution, seeking to make it more and more dominant in scientific and religious thought.

To be honest, I am not sure that there is even any such thing as an "Evolutionary Scientist." And for the most part, courses in evolution are not taught in puclic schools. At least I have never heard of any such course.

It may be briefly referenced in general science or in biology classes, but it is just too specialized to be taught as a separate class in high school.

I do not think that an enormous number of scientists have manipulated data regarding evolution, because there has not been an enourmous number of scientists working on these problems.

And scientists do not manipulate data to conform to their religious ideas; science is not a person's dabbling into philosophy; a scientist seeks to interpret date accurately and properly, to establish good credentials and a reputation as a good scientist, since being a scientist is a job, that earns money and pays the bills; manipulating the data to suits ones own personal beliefs would not get one ahead in the world of science, nor pay the rent, either.

So, may I be so bold as to ask, just what is DET?

Buckminsterj

Do not look to science for a valid moral code.

Speculaing on the religious or philosophical implications of science is not science. Deriving a moral code from science is not science.

RCofield

Science is ungoverned. There are no formal rules for its operation. There are no formal rules for the formation of scientific consensus; it simply forms itself, as many people agree on the same thing. No one forces the agreement, and anyone is free to dissent.

Scientists argue back and forth all the time about matters which are in dispute; the absense of argument and dispute is the formation of consensus of opinion. There is no scientific politburo enforcing belief; there is no scientific Pope; a consensus of opiinion only dissolves, when there is new information, which causes many scientists to form new or differnt opinions.

Religious objection to evolution is not new. These objections were immediately raised to oppose evolution. If you have something new to add to you debate on why evolution is wrong, then go ahead and throw it into the conversation. But your old, old argument has been rehashed to death, and, I'm sorry, does not constitute "debate."

RCofield

As science, evolution is settled; it is not being debated among scienctists because it is settled; that is what settled means.

If you choose to debate it, that is your choice; no one is trying to stop you; go ahead and debate about evolution until you are blue in the face.

But the consensus of science does not backtrack over settled matters simply because the consensus does not sit will with any particular person or individual. It is a consensus, meaning the views of many scientiest, the vast majority, in fact; to change a scientific consensus of opinion, your debate must do more than change a mind or two; it must change many minds, in fact, the vast majority of minds; that is the definition of a consensus.

If you think that a particular person, or a certain school of philosphers has exalted evolution to religeous status, then you have a legitimate complaint about that. But that does not and cannot change the scientific consensus of opinion regarding evolution.

If you want to know about evolution, I would suggest that instead of reading philosphical interpreations of what evolution might mean, you read about the science of evolution.

If you do not choose to do that, then that is fine. No one is forcing you to read or to believe anything. But then also, you cannot by the force of your anger or displeasure, compel a change in the consensus of science.

To me, your arguments sound very anti-science. I can only go by what your say. Perhaps, if you do not really understand science, you should not comment on it. That is the favorite retort of Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, and many other conservatively relgious individuals. Shouldn't it also be applicable to someone like you?

Hi RCofield,

Glad you’re still here – sorry for the delayed response. Busy day yesterday.

First, your comment about natural/sexual selection (“survival of the fittest”) is well-taken – and precisely why I argued that DET can inform morality but isn’t itself a moral system. (You’re obviously familiar with Harris – do you really think “survival of the fittest” will be a tenet of whatever “science of morality” he proposes?)

But we seem not to be making any progress, so I’ll accept your invitation to try a different tack. Here are my complete and total concessions to you:

1. Darwinian evolutionists use DET to make moral claims.

2. An enormous number of scientists, unwilling to subject themselves to the moral dictates of a supernatural force – pride goeth before the fall – have over the past 150 years fundamentally
manipulated evidence to support evolution.

3. As a result, the moral claims made by such people as Harris and Dawkins using DET are utterly compromised.

So now I’m in a quandary – my worldview has been shattered. To what or whom should I look for a) an explanation of the history, diversity, and possible future of life on earth, and b) a valid moral code, or at least the means by which to identify or construct a valid moral code?

TO THE OWNER OF THIS BLOG,

Why are my responses to BUCKMINSTRJ not being posted?

Hey, CORNBREAD,

Yeah, I was aware of the length/regularity constraints. I have already eliminated those as possibilities here. Strange.

While I agree that natural selection, purely by definition, is not random, any evolutionary scientist will readily agree that there is a massive element of chance in the DET process. It is, after all, supposed to be an "undirected" process, otherwise is seems that they would be admitting to intelligence (gasp! :) ). While this has always been an Achilles Heel for DET, the extraordinary complexity and order of DNA challenges the probability of such a process in an unprecedented way.

RCofield:

Sometimes if a comment is too long, or if someone makes a lot of comments in a short period of time, they may get held up.

Also, natural selection is, by definition, not random.

TO THE OWNER OF THIS BLOG,

Why are my responses to BUCKMINSTRJ not being posted?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN:

“Evolution is not religion; it is settled science. People may believe that it is true or not. But rejecton of evolution as science and therefore rejecton of science and scientific consensus of opinion, in general, is not a credible or serious point of view in seeking to know the truth about the world. In seeking to form a valid image of the world, science cannot be avoided.”

First, it is mildly amusing to watch proponents of DET protect their sacred “scientific” cow. To state that evolution is “settled science” is to try and close the debate, which clearly contradicts the basic premise of the scientific method (data dictates conclusions). We are assured repeatedly that evolutionists, unlike theists, are open-minded to any empirical data that may change their mind…yet…evolution is “settled science.” Whose mind is closed here? Are you unaware of the fact that science is constantly modifying its previous conclusions as more and newer data becomes available?

Secondly, as we continue to delve further into the astounding structure and complexity of information contained in DNA, the mathematics of probability are inexorably rendering random selection (one of the foundational premises of evolutionary theory) a mute point. Only those who have embraced DET by a "religious" blind leap of faith can dismiss this evidence. Further, your “consensus of opinion” within the scientific community is a myth, for a steady and ever-increasing stream of credible, highly credentialed scientists are “crossing the isle” by rejecting DET and joining the ranks of those who are contending for the theory of intelligent design.

Thirdly, your attempt to accuse those who reject “evolution as science” of rejecting all “science and scientific consensus of opinion” is both weak and dishonest. The rejection of one theory of science does not in any way logically lead one to reject all scientific theory. That is preposterous and resort to such an illogical polemic on your part betrays the weakness of your own position. To try and dismiss all who disagree with DET-based science as not possessing “a credible or serious point of view in seeking to know the truth about the world” lacks apologetic integrity.

“More often is it part of an agenda to promote fundamentalist thought, and to impose such thought on unwilling people.”

I assure you I am no religious fundamentalist.

May the Sovereign Lord of the Universe close the mouths of the lions in your den. :) Peace brother.

When I say that evolution is not religion, I am being accurate.

It sounds like you have "hang-ups"over this issue.

Science is not religion and science is not philosophy. What other people may make of their beliefs, which may be based on science, is beside the point.

Mocking science does not make is less true.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN:

One has only to listen to the arguments of the New Atheism scientists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, etc.) to realize the inaccuracy of your statements. They speak of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory (DET)and its derivative science in eloquent, beatific, glowing, evangelistic terms (though it’s foundational premise—survival of the fittest—is brutal beyond comprehension). The vast majority of their apologetic begins and ends with DET, and they assure their followers that this “scientific” theory has rendered all other religious claims useless and unnecessary. And their followers, often without thinking for themselves, buy what they are selling.

Again, if it looks like religion, smells like religion, feels like religion, sounds like religion, and fits the definition of religion

May I ask why my submittals are not being posted?

If a particular person or a writer that you zero in on makes evolution into their religion, that does not make evolution a religion for scientists. Evoluton is not a religon, and it deceptive for anyone to say otherwise. If such a person is sincere, then they do not understand what they are talking about. More often is it part of an agenda to promote fundamentalist thought, and to impose such thought on unwilling people.

Evolution is not religion; it is settled science. People may believe that it is true or not. But rejecton of evolution as science and therefore rejecton of science and scientific consensus of opinion, in general, is not a credible or serious point of view in seeking to know the truth about the world. In seeking to form a valid image of the world, science cannot be avoided.

Ggjjhgfjhfh

test

test

123

BUCKMINSTERJ: (Part 3 of 3)
(Sorry, last post should have read Part 2 of 3)

Let’s return to the question I posed to test your theory that people determine morality. For the sake of clarity I would like to first make sure I understand your response, for it is startling:

“Cannibalism? Dead bodies, in my conception, have no moral rights. Unless their consumption is intended (or taken) as an act of disrespect to their surviving loved ones, or say, leads to additional violence or causes illness among children, then bon appétit.”

You seem to be saying that cannibalism is morally acceptable as long as the victim’s family doesn’t find it offensive, it doesn’t lead to further violence, and it doesn’t make children sick. Am I following you? If so, is cannibalism morally acceptable if the victim has no family, the perpetrator does not allow children to eat the flesh of the deceased, and nobody cares enough for further violence to ensue?

“As for murder, that’s another situation entirely, isn’t it? There are several reasons murder is considered immoral: it causes suffering in the victim and his/her loved ones, it often precipitates additional violence and suffering, it weakens the social bonds that allow people to thrive, etc. In other words, it typically makes people unhappy and we prefer happiness.”

So, you are saying murder is, in the final analysis, immoral only to the extent that it makes people unhappy? If so, keeping in mind your argument is that people determine morality, WHO—what people, or subgroup of people, or what individual--DETERMINES whether a murder “causes suffering in the victim and his/her loved ones, …precipitates additional violence and suffering, (or) weakens the social bonds that allow people to thrive, etc”?

Before answering, consider first the violent history of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.), and the propagating principle of DET—Survival of the Fittest. And, though I hate to belabor the point, remember your premise: People determine morality.

BUCKMINSTERJ: (Part 2 of 2)

A couple of points before returning to the test of your theory that people determine morality:

“Incidentally (or not), you continue to dismiss the evidence for evolution (oh no, mock quotes!) without actually discrediting (or even acknowledging) it, nor have you proposed a credible counter theory.”

Sorry about the quotation marks on evolution. I don’t mean for it to be offensive. I sometimes use quotations for emphasis rather than all caps (don’t want to appear to be shouting…). I’ll try to avoid this in the future.

As for dismissing the evidence for evolution, I don’t recall you citing any specific evidence to this point in our dialogue. You have made a number of references to the “mountain” of evidence for DET, but I don’t presume to know what you consider evidence. If you want to delineate what you believe to be convincing evidence (as well as why you consider it such) I will be glad to try and respond.

Additionally, I have purposely not “proposed a credible counter-theory.” It is evident that you are currently quite resistant to any form of theistic explanation of human origin, meaning, morality, and destiny, so I will not treat you disrespectfully by trying to “force christianity down your throat.” I am willing to initially contend with you in the arena of the worldview you now hold for several reasons.

First, I am reasonably familiar with the DET worldview, and I am convinced that, given time and opportunity, I can demonstrate to any reasonable individual that there are a number of serious problems with this worldview. (I know, you don’t consider it to be a worldview, but I believe I can demonstrate that it is…later).

Secondly, one is generally not open to theistic answers to the “big” questions until one begins to recognize that one’s materialistic answers are deficient.

Finally, this approach allows me to hone my own apologetic by becoming more familiar with the beliefs of those who disagree with me.

I will endure your derisive remarks about theism in the spirit of discussing your opening premise (see your post of July 9, 2:06 PM). When I have demonstrated a deficiency in that premise I will then offer the theistic “counter-theory” that answers to the deficiency, which we can then discuss. I will then present a theistic argument…..and so on. Is this not consistent with the common rules of debate?

BUCKMINSTERJ: (Part 1 of 3)

“Anyway, this has been fun. But it's Sunday morning, so off to church for me . . .”

Without the advantage of hearing voice inflection I am not sure whether you are pulling my leg……or hedging your bet. :)

“In any case, your assumption that I will necessarily agree with him (Sam Harris, contending that science/DET can tell us what is morally right and wrong), like your assumption that I’m not relaxed, is mistaken.”

It seems to me you have already agreed. In denial of my contention that the New Atheism is now telling us that DET can tell us what is morally right and wrong you first argue that “…the ONLY claims DET would make on morality are possible explanations for its origin and development as a human construct.” Then you contend that “people determine morality” (presumably what is morally right/wrong), said people being the product of, and inexorably governed by, the dictates of DET. The contradiction here seems apparent. If people are inexorably governed by the laws of DET…and people determine what is morally right/wrong…then the laws of DET are determining what is morally right/wrong. Maybe I am missing something here, but that seems to be the obvious logical progression.

You then further confirm that DET dictates what is morally right and wrong by speculating that “Perhaps it (Sam Harris’ “science” of morality) will be rooted in the Darwinian imperative to avoid suffering or the concept of morality as primary tool for survival.” This too seems to contradict your contention quoted in the second line of the paragraph above. Both the avoidance of suffering and morality as a primary tool for survival are DET imperatives, and could, according to your own statement, “perhaps” be a determinative explanation of moral right/wrong. How do you square this with your initial position?

Additionally, you assert that murder is morally wrong because “it causes suffering in the victim and his/her loved ones” (DET avoidance of suffering), and “..it weakens the social bonds that allow people to thrive” (DET survival). See, we didn’t even have to wait in breathless anticipation of Harris’ book to make the case that the laws of DET can determine for us what is morally right and wrong. You have already made the case, despite your initial declaration that “…the ONLY claims DET would make on morality are possible explanations for its origin and development as a human construct.”

RCofield (part 2):

“First, you embrace DET which propounds that people “evolved” from primordial ooze (supposedly on the basis of “evidence”).”

Yes, I do. Incidentally (or not), you continue to dismiss the evidence for evolution (oh no, mock quotes!) without actually discrediting (or even acknowledging) it, nor have you proposed a credible counter theory.

“Secondly, you determine there is no God, hence no Moral Authority”

Close. I determine there is very, very likely no god. And, even if a creator were likely to exist, that would still not necessarily establish him/her/it as a moral authority (i.e. the personal god). Still, I’m with you . . .

“Thirdly, you conclude that morality is necessary (otherwise there is only chaos), so people must be the determiners of what is morally right and wrong.”

Nope. I think I might conclude that morality is advantageous, but I wouldn’t conclude that it’s necessary (it might be, but I don’t assume that it is). Other forms of life on earth existed on earth for billions of years without morality, so humans might also have been capable. Who knows?

“These indigenous people have determined that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat the flesh of one’s enemies. The question is two-fold. Is this practice of cannibalism morally right or wrong? If wrong, how do you determine that it is wrong?”

Cannibalism? Dead bodies, in my conception, have no moral rights. Unless their consumption is intended (or taken) as an act of disrespect to their surviving loved ones, or say, leads to additional violence or causes illness among children, then bon appétit.

As for murder, that’s another situation entirely, isn’t it? There are several reasons murder is considered immoral: it causes suffering in the victim and his/her loved ones, it often precipitates additional violence and suffering, it weakens the social bonds that allow people to thrive, etc. In other words, it typically makes people unhappy and we prefer happiness.

You want to know how morality can exist without a supernatural moral authority? In addition to Mill’s utilitarianism (mentioned in the previous post), any college freshman would be happy to point you to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Socratic ethics, etc. Are these worldviews perfect? Of course not. But they’re infinitely better than simply inventing a bunch of rules and then attributing them to a magical being only you can see and hear.

Anyway, this has been fun. But it's Sunday morning, so off to church for me . . .

RCofield (part 1):

“I have twice noted that Sam Harris is publishing a book to this end (Toward a Science of Morality) in which he will contend that DET gifts us with morality and can tell us what is right and wrong—a point which, incidentally, you have yet to even acknowledge.”

All I know about “Toward a Science of Morality” is that, yes, it is forthcoming, though I’ve read nothing else about it – merely from its title, I’d presumed that its purpose would be to arrive at a comprehensive moral code through the scientific process. If Harris in fact uses DET specifically and exclusively, then I’ll concede your point (though this is a minor concession, as it has no bearing on the validity of his theory, just its existence).

Frankly, I’ll be curious to see how Harris makes such an argument. Perhaps it will be rooted in the Darwinian imperative to avoid suffering or the concept of morality as primary tool for survival (either of which sounds like repackaged utilitarianism, a school of thought I see much value in, by the way). Then again, I’m neither as smart or well-read as Harris, so hopefully, his argument is more novel.

In any case, your assumption that I will necessarily agree with him, like your assumption that I’m not relaxed, is mistaken.

CORNBREAD,

I am aware.

CORNBREAD,

I am.

RCofield:

Are you unaware that many theists from many different religions accept evolution via natural selection?

BUCKMINSTERJ: PART 2 of 2

So, how do you (and the New Atheists) arrive at the conclusion that people determine what is morally right and wrong? Follow me here:

First, you embrace DET which propounds that people “evolved” from primordial ooze (supposedly on the basis of “evidence”). This becomes your foundational presupposition.

Secondly, you determine there is no God, hence no Moral Authority (because, after all, He never has appeared in my bedroom, and anyway who needs a god to create us and exercise moral authority over us when all the “evidence” tells us we evolved). This becomes a secondary presupposition, based in no small degree upon the first.

Thirdly, you conclude that morality is necessary (otherwise there is only chaos), so people must be the determiners of what is morally right and wrong. This presupposition is a by-product of your second presupposition (no God/no Moral Authority), but is ultimately founded upon your first presupposition (DET).

You are correct that your (and the New Atheism’s) third conclusion is the result of “merely a bond of applied principle.” But that is not really the question, is it? The real question is whether the principles applied to determine conclusion #1 are correct, for if they are not, all three conclusion would necessarily be wrong. How might we test these conclusions?

Let’s start by posing a question about conclusion #3 (people determine morality). Remember that if conclusion #3 is wrong, then both of the other conclusions would necessarily be wrong because all three are determined by the same “applied principle.” Here is the question:

In the so-called “Dark Triangle” region of Indonesia there exists primitive tribes who have had virtually no contact with the outside world. Several of these tribes practice cannibalism. These indigenous people have determined that it is morally acceptable to kill and eat the flesh of one’s enemies. The question is two-fold. Is this practice of cannibalism morally right or wrong? If wrong, how do you determine that it is wrong?

Before I end this post I would like to respond to your accusation that I am making “blanket statements” about DET “without any support….just like a theist.”

If I wanted to, I could say that you are making blanket statements about Christianity without offering any support…just like an atheist, but I won’t because that would only be a weak attempt to discredit what you are saying without actually having to respond with lucid arguments….Oh! Wait…..I just did! Sorry! :)

Relax, man. It’s just a discussion forum. If you are right on all these issues you have nothing to worry about.

BUCKMINSTRJ: (PART 1 of 2)

I think you may be missing my point entirely. You contend (rightly) that DET can’t define what is morally right or wrong. I contend that this is a glaring weakness in DET as a worldview, the New Atheists recognize this, and are trying to buttress this weakness. They are doing so by appealing to DET (their underlying presupposition) and they are positioning themselves to tell us that on the “premises and evidence” of DET science can tell us what is morally right and wrong. If you listen to their rhetoric this is self-evident.

I have twice noted that Sam Harris is publishing a book to this end (Toward a Science of Morality) in which he will contend that DET gifts us with morality and can tell us what is right and wrong—a point which, incidentally, you have yet to even acknowledge. You reply by re-stating “the only claims DET would make on morality are possible explanations for its origin and development as a human construct.” No, the New Atheism is now telling us that DET-based science can tell us what is morally right and wrong. And you, apparently unwittingly, are going to agree with them despite your contention that DET can ONLY tell of the “possible explanations for its (morality’s) origin and development as a human construct,” for you go on to say “What the New Atheists recognize – and what many theists are so loathe to accept – is that people determine morality.” Did you get that? You are saying the people determine what is morally right and wrong.

TBC

RCofield, “Have you ever met an atheist that did not subscribe to the theory of evolution? I seriously doubt that you have . . . This phenomenon is not accidental.”

No, it certainly is not. Atheists reject (though not absolutely, not even Dawkins) the existence of god because there is no credible evidence for his existence, while they accept evolution because it is substantiated by overwhelming evidence. You’ll notice the underlying connection – support (or lack thereof) for a hypothesis.

However, that is a merely a bond of applied principle, not functional overlap. As I stated previously, the only claims DET would make on morality are possible explanations for its origin and development as a human construct. What the New Atheists recognize – and what many theists are so loathe to accept – is that people determine morality. They don’t cede questions of good and bad, right and wrong to a supernatural being. Which is not to argue that they – or anyone else is always correct in their moral conclusions – but they base these conclusions on carefully examined premises and evidence.

If you find that approach to formulating a moral worldview “weak,” I’d be happy to hear your suggestions for a stronger one. My suspicion is that you cannot, just as you cannot provide a stronger (or, I’m guessing, even mildly probable) alternative to the theory of evolution. Instead, you’ll make blanket statements about the deficiencies of DET in the realm of science or New Atheism in that of morality without offering any support. Just like a theist.

BUCKMINSTERJ: “That the “New Atheists” happen to be evolutionists – most educated people, of course, do tend to respect evidence –…..”

First, this apparent presupposition (very common among atheists) that theists are by default uneducated and anti-intellectual is amusing. While, as a theist, I certainly do respect (and, at times, almost envy) the intellectual acumen of men such a Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc., I do not concede that they have cornered market when it comes to education and intellect. For every well-educated, intellectually astute atheist there is an equally well-educated and intellectually astute christian theist [maybe two :)]. This is a genuinely hollow insinuation on your part.

Secondly, many atheists seem to presume faith and evidence-based reason are antithetical. While I readily admit that many christians accept their own presuppositions by a blind (non-evidentiary) faith—you have your share of such adherents on your side of the table as well—such “blind” faith is not compatible with the teachings of the bible.

Faith, by scriptural definition, is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen (Hebrews 1:1). No clear-thinking christian accepts what they believe by blind faith. The christian faith requires that we have compelling, substantive evidence for the hope that lies within us and for the things that we cannot physically see. Reason and logic are part and parcel of a robust christian faith. If you will watch the above referred to debate between Dawkins and Lennox you will see that Lennox complete stymied the brilliant Dawkins on this very point.

It is truly the very height of arrogance on the part of atheists who want to insist that christian faith is “uneducated” and lacks intellectual integrity. Even worse, it is to ignore the long and well-documented history of christians who were (and some who are today) intellectual giants.

In conclusion on this particular point, if you have not read or listened to at least some of those who give a reasoned defense of the christian faith, you should (they ARE out there). You will find that the christian position is not nearly the “unsubstantiated fantasy” you seem to think it is. To involve oneself in the debate and not be relatively well-informed of the best arguments from those with whom one disagrees lacks intellectual integrity.

More later

CORNBREAD: "RCofield--Using your criteria, Burger King restaurants are churches."

For some people they are. I prefer cornbread and butterbeans. : )

RCofield:

Using your criteria, Burger King restaurants are churches.

BUCKMINSTERJ: “That the “New Atheists” happen to be evolutionists – most educated people, of course, do tend to respect evidence – does not mean that the theory of evolution has anything to do with morality. The former tackles the question of how the world works; the latter, what we like and don’t like about how the world works.”

First, I would submit that atheists don’t just “happen” to be evolutionists. Have you ever met an atheist that did not subscribe to the theory of evolution? I seriously doubt that you have—but IF you have, you have met a seriously confused individual. This phenomenon is not accidental. Acceptance of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (DET) inevitably results in one rejecting theism and embracing atheism. The more honest among you (i.e. Dawkins) freely and repeatedly confess that they reject theism on the basis of their certainty that DET does (or eventually will) answer all the “big” questions for them (see Dawkins/Lennox debate 2007 at University of Alabama).

Secondly, your denial that the New Atheists being evolutionists does not mean that evolution has anything to do with morality seems to indicate that you may not be keeping up with the debate. As they have (to their credit) engaged in debates with theists in the public marketplace of ideas, the New Atheists have begun to realize that their evolutionary worldview does not rationally deal with the question of morality. Recognizing this weakness in their argument, there has been a major movement among them over the last couple of years to try and buttress this inherent weakness. The repeated denial (your statement above is the “canned” response) that DET has nothing whatsoever to do with morality notwithstanding, they know they have a problem. (As an aside, I completely agree with you that DET has nothing to do with morality. It CAN’T answer questions about morality).

Recognizing that they can’t sell DET as a worldview unless they address the question of morality, the race is on. Coming down the backstretch, Sam Harris has taken the lead, pulling ahead of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and the rest of the New Atheist horses. He is, as I have already pointed out, publishing a book in the fall of this year titled “Toward a Science of Morality.” Having heard him speak on this issue, I would enter into a friendly wager with you that when this book is unveiled DET will be the presuppositional foundation of his argument.

You may not see DET as having anything to do with morality, but it is undeniable that the leaders of the New Atheism see it differently. And incidentally, if it doesn’t address morality (and it can’t), you should abandon it as the presuppositional foundation of your worldview. This is one of the many inherent weaknesses of DET, and if you are not extremely careful how you respond to this you will find yourself at a rational impasse.

I will continue my response a little later today.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN: “RELIGION is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law, also encompassing ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.”

It should be pointed out that the word “often” in this definition does not mean always. In the case of the religion of evolutionary theory, supernatural claims are replaced by naturalistic claims which are often unsubstantiated by the scientific method. Such claims are frequently accepted by a blind (non-evidentiary) leap of faith. For an example of this see Dawkin’s theory of meme. Never proven, discredited by the scientific community, yet postulated as “100% accurate” (see my exchange with Secular below). Many such unsubstantiated claims are “codified” as supposed fail-proof arguments, “ritualistically” recited anytime an atheist feels threatened by a theist, eventually becoming accepted as a kind of “religious law,” and becoming for many a “personal faith” whereby they are assured they have all the answers to the “big” questions of life.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN: “Plain old scientific evolution is not a religion by the stretch of anyone's imagination.”

One has only to listen to the arguments of the New Atheism to realize the inaccuracy of this statement. They speak of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory (DET) in eloquent, beatific, glowing, evangelistic terms (though it’s foundational premise—survival of the fittest—is brutal beyond comprehension). The vast majority of their apologetic begins and ends with DET, and they assure their followers that this “scientific” theory has rendered all other religious claims useless and unnecessary. And their followers, often without thinking for themselves, buy what they are selling.

If it looks like religion, smells like religion, feels like religion, sounds like religion, and fits the definition of religion…..well, it’s a fairly safe bet it IS religion.

Much thanks to SECULAR, BUCKMINSTERJ, and, most recently to DANIELINTHELIONSDEN for so much material to respond to. You guys really are leaving yourselves exposed on so many fronts that one can hardly decide where to begin. I'll get back to you tomorrow when I have a little time. I am genuinely enjoying dialogue with you guys.

RCofield,

That the “New Atheists” happen to be evolutionists – most educated people, of course, do tend to respect evidence – does not mean that the theory of evolution has anything to do with morality. The former tackles the question of how the world works; the latter, what we like and don’t like about how the world works.

And no, the fact that some scientists manipulate data or struggle with personal bias does not indict the entire scientific process, nor does it, in the case of evolution, place an unsubstantiated fantasy on par with a mountain of evidence.

As for, say, biogenesis, the fact that people cannot yet imagine a plausible scenario in which life (or the universe as a whole) springs into being does not justify conjuring some magical creator who is immune from the same questions of origin. People who do so, as Cal Thomas’ post demonstrates, are intellectually lazy, too worried that they’re not inherently meaningful to actually go out and create meaning. But after all, if man isn’t capable of his own salvation, why bother applying yourself – just accept Jesus, regard your unexamined prejudices and desires as “truth,” and await your eternal reward for being so gosh-darn special.

Rcofield

RELIGION is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law, also encompassing ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.

Plain old scientific evolution is not a religion by the stretch of anyone's imagination.

BUCKMINSTERJ: “Evolutionary theory makes no claim on morality except to explain its possible function.”

To the contrary, modern evolutionist’s rhetoric (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) is filled with claims about morality. Sam Harris is in the final stages of publishing a book titled “Toward A Science of Morality.” He set the table for its publication in February of this year at the TED conference by arguing that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science. They are realizing that if they are going to sell evolutionary theory as a worldview they have to start dealing with the “big” questions. The problem is that their answers will be wrong because their core presupposition is wrong.

“Likewise, its cause or purpose (a principle cannot be a verb) is to explain the diversity of life, not its origins.”

When Dawkins says that it is possible that extra-terrestrials may have seeded the first life forms on earth, “but if that was the case, then they (the E.T.s) themselves would have had to evolve” (lol) it is irrefutable that the New Atheism is grappling with the question of origin from a purely evolutionary worldview. But they can’t seem to take the Darwinian blinders off long enough to see how lame such an argument actually is. Evolutionists don’t make good philosophers, nor are they noted for their apologetics skills.

“And its ‘system of beliefs’ is not based on blind faith, but on the careful observations (i.e. not blindness) of countless scientists whose work is based on the principle that truth is best determined through empirical evidence.”

It is mildly amusing to see the extent to which some will go to portray the scientific community as possessing impeccable integrity. I think the recent exposure of data-manipulation and intentional withholding of pertinent data in the global warming debate should dispel that myth. When this is taken with the growing exodus of scientists who are rejecting the evolutionary model and contending for intelligent design, it should be obvious that there is not the “universal agreement” among scientists that many would have us believe. Not all “science” is driven by the principle of truth being determined through empirical evidence.

The bottom line is that we all struggle with personal, honest examination of the presuppositions that undergird our worldviews. The scientific community is not exempt from this struggle.

rich9308

Christianity is dominant in America. I hardly think it takes any courage to "come out" as a Christian. If you think it does, then you must be paranoid.

RCOFIELD: “This clearly defines the modern development of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Its cause is to free man from the moral constraints of a Creator, its principle is to explain life without having to acknowledge a Creator, and it is a system of beliefs (arrived at by dishonestly manipulating the evidence) that is held to with ardor and blind faith by its adherents.”

Please. Evolutionary theory makes no claim on morality except to explain its possible function. Likewise, its cause or purpose (a principle cannot be a verb) is to explain the diversity of life, not its origins. And its “system of beliefs” is not based on blind faith, but on the careful observations (i.e. not blindness) of countless scientists whose work is based on the principle that truth is best determined through empirical evidence. You know, as opposed to making a bunch of stuff up.

Why should we take your claims of “manipulated evidence” seriously when you so obviously misunderstand the theory of evolution itself?

PART 2 (In reply to Secular)

Secular states: “You are mistaken, what else to expect from a theist. Evolutionary theory is not a religion, all evolutionary scientists are open to evidence to change their minds.”

Religion, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, may be defined as “A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” This clearly defines the modern development of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Its cause is to free man from the moral constraints of a Creator, its principle is to explain life without having to acknowledge a Creator, and it is a system of beliefs (arrived at by dishonestly manipulating the evidence) that is held to with ardor and blind faith by its adherents.

Further, religion may be defined as “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.” Again, this clearly defines modern evolutionary theory. It is a set of beliefs that try to explain the cause of the universe (Big Bang, etc.), the nature of the universe (survival of the fittest, red in tooth and claw), and the purpose of the universe (purposelessness: we are just accidental collections of protoplasm without purpose or destiny).

Yes, clearly evolutionary theory is a religion, Darwin was its prophet, and Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens are its modern day apostles who preach this belief system with all the ardor of evangelists. Case closed.

And as a closing note, to state that “ALL evolutionary scientists are open to evidence to change their minds” borders on the gullible. Additionally, not all theists operate with closed minds. There are some of us who are open to evidence that might change our mind. We are, however, highly resistant to the ideology of those who want to manipulate the evidence to fit their presupposed theories.

PART 1 (In reply to Secular)

Secular states: “First of all Meme is a construct to explain the propagation and modification of social and cultural ideas, traditions and more. It never was presented as some kind of physical thing, if you thought so please stand corrected.”

Yes, I (although only a dim-witted theist) do understand that Dawkin’s meme theory is a philosophical/psychological construct rather than a biological theory. Several of my statements in previous posts were made tongue-in-cheek in a attempt to remind Secular of the scientific requirement of quantifiable evidence to support its presuppositions (theories). Apparently the sarcasm was not perceived.

My problem with the meme theory it is that both Dawkins and his followers (i.e. Secular) seem unaware that it is a philosophical/psychological construct and want to pick and choose (to their own advantage) the analogous properties of the theory in relation to DNA based genes. They are doing this in an attempt to create an illusion that they have created a bridge between the biological and philosophical/psychological disciplines. In reality they are (very weakly) attempting to explain the big questions with which these other disciplines grapple by means of the pseudo-principles of biological evolution. In the words of philosopher, mathematician, and molecular biologist David Berlinski: “Richard (Dawkins) should stick to science. He is a crummy philosopher.”

Semioticists (those who study semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics) and others in the fields of the cognitive sciences have thoroughly debunked the meme theory as a degenerative concept that detracts from the serious study of cultural traits and the advances in cognitive science. Interestingly enough, they have done so on the basis of the fact that the obvious problem with the meme theory lies in its replication mechanism (an idea passed from one brain to another). This is an extremely unstable process, and it would obviously lead to low replication accuracy and a very high mutation rate, thus rendering the evolutionary process of “memes” meaninglessly chaotic and degenerative. This is the exact same problem that exists in the theory of biological evolution. All the observable data points to devolution (degeneration) rather than the upward generation of evolution. But if one has drunk the Darwinian cool-aid this data is ignored in the interest of advancing the evolutionary presupposition. Go figure.

RCofield

"I am saying that there is no empirical scientific data to support this theory".

First of all Meme is a construct to explain the propagation and modification of social and cultural ideas, traditions and more. It never was presented as some kind of physical thing, if you thought so please stand corrected.

"It seems the “meme” theory was never anything more than pseudoscientific dogma hatched in the fertile mind of Darwin’s Bulldog (Dawkins) in a weak attempt to advance the religion of evolutionary theory into the field of religion and sociology."

You are mistaken, what else to expect from a theist. Evolutionary theory is not a religion, all evolutionary scientists are open to evidence to change their minds. Meme were a construct used to try to explain the ever changing landscape of religion and as well as the persistence of the same, which have some similarities with the rise, fall, & changes of species.

"Yet you offer this pseudoscience as a “100% accurate” explanation for the diversity of religious beliefs."

It is just an analogy, and as far as analogies it is pretty good.

Athena4: Every one of the ancient Mediterranian religions to which your reffer taught that man's salvation was, at least in part, achievable by his own works. Again, the distinctive of biblical Christianity is that it is the only world religion that teaches man is utterly incapable of contributing anything to his salvation.

And it takes a good deal more than a good marketing scheme to propogate a worldview for 2000 years.

shreddine

Ask youself this:

If evil were to come into this world, how would evil act.

You may be tempted to say he would go about killing and raping etc. But a far higher evil would come into this world and get you to do these things in his name. You would worship in his name, not in an abstract of Truth. You would worship in that only he has the right way in NAME. Not that he was love, or truth, or justice, or bliss, or compassion, but in NAME.

Then, in his name, how would he get people to hurt others. Well, he needs to tell them that no matter what they do, they will get into his true heaven. By removing from them the consequences of their actions, he will propagate hatred, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and all the while those who worship in his name will think they are the good guys.

Look at history, you have jesus the devil.

On the other hand, whether you are a Buddhist, Pagan, Hindu, or even a humanist, you believe in truth as it is. You don't care about name except in that it helps you get to truth. Your gods tell you, you have the ability, the divine spark to connect with me even without a book without a name. Krishna says, he will help you attain what you need and want regardless of the name you pray to because he will know the faith in your heart. He also says, you will obtain the moral fruits, positive and negative, of all you do until you are ready to transcend morality. That is a karmic religion - one that believes in justice. Not eternal damnation or salvation with a proxy to suffer for your sins but not the sins of those that don't worship his NAME. Such name worship and desire for ignoring moral responsibility is the source of evil in the world. And jesus' teachings, or rather the teachings of those who speak in his name (as he has chosen not to correct them, he has condoned them) are teachings of a harmful, unjust demon/god.

Mistaking the errors of people v the errors of gods. Well, the error of the biblical god is that he was a poor creator that needed to fix it. He made man poorly and then decided he had better fix man otherwise the hell he created (in willful anticipation of causing eternal suffering for those that reject christianity) would be too full. It is a poor god, it is a demon god.

I hope someday your eyes will be opened to the fact that you are worshiping a god that is angry, wrathful, jealous, spiteful, hating, cruel (all his words) monster. That reflects on your choices of what you believe to be good. Ignorance of the harm that that demon has caused. But, the God I worship says he will love you for the faith you show even if you reject his love. This god will not condemn you to hell for making a choice in ignorance. Perhaps someday you too can worship such a god.

hariaum

Secular, I am not questioning your usage of “meme,” I am saying that there is no empirical scientific data to support this theory.

There exists no code script for “memes,” nor does it seem that one is forthcoming. Your “wiki” definition notwithstanding, its original proponents couldn’t even agree on how to define this “made-up” term and, in the absence of evidentiary support for the theory, have shelved the idea. It seems the “meme” theory was never anything more than pseudoscientific dogma hatched in the fertile mind of Darwin’s Bulldog (Dawkins) in a weak attempt to advance the religion of evolutionary theory into the field of religion and sociology.

Yet you offer this pseudoscience as a “100% accurate” explanation for the diversity of religious beliefs. It would seem to me that the much ballyhooed Secular propensity for evidence-based reasoning would preclude your use of this unproven “meme” theory. Or has the religion of Dawkinsian Secular Humanism required you just accept it by a blind leap of faith?

Hariaum, how was He wrong? As for the killing of people, He was not here for it, and did not ask us to do it. Do not take the actions of man as an action of God. If I go out and kill in your name, does that make you a bad person? History was an act of man, not God. You have the right to believe what you want to, and I will fight for that right. Just as I will pray that one day the Holy Spirit removes the scales from your eyes, and softens your heart, so that you too can see the truth. I also disbelieved before. So if I can change my heart, one day you might also. God Bless

It is funny how when someone does not want to believe the bible they will believe anything elsse that cays that the bible is wrong. toby, have you actually read the bible and realized that it is 66 different letters, written by 40 different men over 1500 years, on three different continets. Yet the whole bible is about one thing. Jesus. The old testament has 330 prophecies about the messiah, Jesus fulfilled all of them. The odds of this are greater then 1 in 10 to the 17th power. How can you not believe the writings of the bible and understand what they mean. But yet you will believe someone who says that John was not with Jesus, and that the verse used was never mentioned by Jesus?

I find this jesus guy as follows

1) he was human, wrong in many ways, right in many ways. We forgive his errors.

2) he was divine, he knew of the nature of men, knew of the potential for killing jews, native americans, and numerous other people in his name, pretty much figured out the future history of his followers as the lead killers and oppressor of all time, and condoned it - he was a demon.

If you ignore history, you might conclude he did something good. Not me.

hariaum

Remember, each of them suffered a violent death (except John who was exiled). Human nature says at least one would have cracked if he was lying about the Resurrection. Cal Thomas

And of course, the Romans never killed anyone for any reason other than believing in the resurrection of Jesus.

"first you can be ostracised from family and friends, ridiculed and made fun of by your peers."

All this happened to me, and I am not even a follower of jebus.

"That the world hates you because it hated him (Christ) first."

So, it's all his fault?

"I dont think most of the people on this forum have adequatley taken time to study and learn history."

I'm pretty sure I haven't.

"God says the problem of evil is inherent in ALL our hearts, mine included."

Mine too?

"The problem of sin is a problem of the heart, and if more people understood how ugly sin really is they would not go near it."

Do you have pictures? That might help.

"You can test the claims of jesus and the bible, just look at the world around you, or study one of the many prophesies, i suggest the book of Daniel...."

How about the book of Oscar?

becoming a follower of Jesus Christ can be a pretty frightening experience. first you can be ostracised from family and friends, ridiculed and made fun of by your peers. yet that is precisley what Christ said before he was crucified. That the world hates you because it hated him (Christ) first. Jesus was a real person who lived breathed, died and was resurected on the 3rd day. I dont think most of the people on this forum have adequatley taken time to study and learn history. God says the problem of evil is inherent in ALL our hearts, mine included. The problem of sin is a problem of the heart, and if more people understood how ugly sin really is they would not go near it. You can test the claims of jesus and the bible, just look at the world around you, or study one of the many prophesies, i suggest the book of Daniel....

Rocofeild, you are questioning my usage of the word "meme". Here is the definition of a meme per Wiki "A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"[1]) is a unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word μιμητισμός ([mɪmetɪsmos]) for "something imitated".)[2] Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures". Based on the above definition my characterization of religions as meme is 100% accurate. It is an analogy, so far as that it only goes so far. But the fact that we have several branches of religion and variations of customs such as the funerary traditions go, actually lends credence to the notion of memes. Some of the alterations in religious customs are more observable with a transforming event, such as the birth protestantism. However, there are some subtle changes take place that often go unnoticed for a long period and the difference is only noticed in contrast to the original custom at some later time.

“It seems that some of you, in your zeal to castigate Christianity, are missing Cal’s point entirely. The question posed is “Are all religions the same?” Mr. Thomas postulates that Christianity is distinct from other religions (faiths) because of the exclusive truth-claims of Jesus Christ.”

Yes, clearly his aim was to distinguish Christianity on the basis of its exclusive truth-claims (q.v. his comprehensive treatment in paragraphs 3-7 of other faiths’ lack of such claims), rather than to lazily assert the validity of those truth-claims in a bit of egocentric proselytization that the term “half-assed” only begins to describe.

Postulations aside, Cal’s stated answer to the question is: “Yes, all religions are alike, but Jesus Christ is the real thing.” Or, less briefly (but just as nonsensically): “All ‘religions’ are the same . . . But unique among faiths is the relationship that Jesus of Nazareth came to re-establish between sinful Man and a Holy God.”

Meaning what, exactly? Religions are the same, but they aren’t? Thanks, Cal.

Actually, Cal, the meme of a dying-and-reborn God sent to save mankind was pretty popular in the Mediterranean Basin back in the day. First you have Osiris and his son Horus from the Egyptians, Tammuz from the Ugaritic people, Dionysus and Orpheus from the Greeks, Attis from what's now Turkey, etc. Not to mention Krishna from the Hindus, and other fertility Gods like John Barleycorn. So, no, Jesus wasn't really original. He just had better marketing.

My Fellow Commentators,

It seems that some of you, in your zeal to castigate Christianity, are missing Cal’s point entirely.

The question posed is “Are all religions the same?” Mr. Thomas postulates that Christianity is distinct from other religions (faiths) because of the exclusive truth-claims of Jesus Christ. He clearly stated: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” Whether you agree with that statement or not, it does distinguish the Christian faith as unique among world religions. That is, it distinguishes BIBLICAL Christianity (and I use this term discriminatorily) from all other world religions. Mr. Thomas is precisely correct when he states that all other religions (be they Eastern, Western, or SECULAR) teach that man is capable of saving himself. Only biblical Christianity teaches the utter inability of man to contribute anything whatsoever to his own salvation.

I am once again astounded by Secular. After criticizing religion as owning “a whole slew of unnatural phenomenon,” and holding to “superstitious beliefs,” he then states:

“Any memes (all religions are indeed memes) that are based on all these silly theses deserve no respect and have really nothing to teach the 21st century humanity.”

Memes? Richard Dawkin’s “selfish,” replicating cultural gene? I thought everyone was aware that this pseudo-science has been utterly discredited. No one has ever observed a “meme” in a laboratory under a microscope (though they certainly have tried), nor has anyone ever claimed to witness a “meme” “replicating” itself. There is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence whatsoever that “memes” exist. Most Cognitive Scientists have abandoned this hypothesis.

Yet Secular offers this utterly superstitious belief in a fictitious, replicating “selfish” gene as a positively irrefutable explanation of religion.

One can only shake one’s head in astonishment. This is a classic case of the pot (Secularism) calling the kettle (Christianity) black. Surely one could not expect such inane arguments as this to result in Christianity being “relegated to the dust heap.”

To sum up, that is basically what I think of Cal Thomas's opinions, in general.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen
-------------------------------------------

My problem is that I generally agree, or at least think he makes good points, in his political opinions. It's embarrassing to agree with him on many things and then see how his mind works.

To be secular and conservative is a difficult combination in modern America.

It is a little bit rude to assert the superiority of your religion on an international forum. Cal doesn't get it, and apparently, many readers don't either.

Would you go on and on to other people about how much more beautiful your home is than theirs? about how your car is better? about how much better your taste in fashion and art is than theirs?

What may be ok in a tiny clique of like-minded people is not ok in an open forum.

Proclamations of religious faith in a tiny Hamlet in West Virginia might be ok, but the very same procalamtion in the presence of many other faiths is just plain rude and insenstiive.

I fully expect to hear replies from the Born-Againers that they take it as a matter of pride to be rude, when it is saving people's souls that is at stake.

But likewise, such a statement is also rude, as well as ignorant.

To sum up, that is basically what I think of Cal Thomas's opinions, in general.

The only reason to read anything by Cal Thomas is as a reminder of the thinking of many, many religious fundamentalists AND to act as stimulus for some of us to reveiw and keep in mind cogent rebuttals to his drivel. So, let's keep him around.

The argument for Jesus' credibility as Messiah goes beyond just what the New Testament writers recorded. Certainly eye witness accounts of Jesus' life and words such as those by Matthew, John, and Mark, and instructional letters by other eye witnesses, such as Peter and Jesus' own half-brother James, must carry substantial weight even as eye witness accounts of today's events do, especially when those accounts corroborate each other. But the evidence in support of Jesus stretches back before His birth into the Old Testament writings where numerous prophecies of His birth, life and death are recorded. These were given in order that those watching for His coming would not miss it, as well as to substantiate the authority of the Scriptures as a whole.

For more on this, I recommend Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ", or Josh McDowell's classic book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Both of these men were skeptics intent on proving that Jesus is not the Son of God, but in the course of their research came to the conclusion that He is who New Testament writers and He, Himself, claimed He was.

We call believers mistaken.

Posted by: tojby_2000

*******************************************

Hey, hey, hey....:)

You can't use that. "You are mistaken" or "You are in error" is the Muslim ulama put down on points relating to faith they strongly, totally disagree with.

Okay. You are free to use that.

From Thomas' editorial: If people think choosing Jesus to follow is of no greater significance or consequence than choosing a "religious leader" to follow, then they are calling Jesus a liar because He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
____________________________________________________

1. The only people who think Jesus said that are the ones that think "John" (a collection of Christian gentlemen born well after Jesus died) was reporting a verbatim quote. Many now think it was a well intentioned Johninne literary invention- a common practice throughout the world in those days.
2. Lots of people think deity belief is the baleful prehensile tail of human evolution.

We don't call your deity a liar. We call believers mistaken.

The disciples nearly all died telling people Jesus had risen from the dead, and you don't willingly die for something you know is a lie. Brantozeke

US Soldiers willingly died for Bush's lies. And I thought Coke is the Real Thing.

At the core all religions have one thing in common. A belief in a whole slew of unnatural phenomenon. Each slew may differ from religion to religion, in some cases even overlap. Discussing these religions and trying to make sense of them is just as fruitful and as stupid as to comparing and contrasting Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" against Alexander Dumas's "Count of Monte Cristo".

When discussing the religions, I cannot get past these superstitious beliefs in the organizing documents (scriptures). Be it be the virgin birth and resurrection of Christians, Parting of the Waters and the Joshua being swallowed by a fish of Judaism, The flying horse or talking bones of Islam, or the many a superstitious beliefs of Hinduism, Jainism, & Buddhism from monster heads swallowing the moon & the Sun to the sweat (or the semen) of an ape swallowed by fish giving rise to a fully grown man. Any memes (all religions are indeed memes) that are based on all these silly theses deserve no respect and have really nothing to teach the 21st century humanity. I sincerely wish and hope that they are all relegated to the dust heap as the humanity as done with Alchemistry, Thorism, Zeusism and thousands of such other memes.

Cal's right. The disciples nearly all died telling people Jesus had risen from the dead, and you don't willingly die for something you know is a lie. The other thing is that people are still getting healed in the name of Jesus today, and demons are still afraid of his name. And if you've never dealt with a demon, be glad. They're deceptive, smart, evil things. And they hate the name of Jesus. Wild, huh.

For the father so loved the world he sent his beloved, Ruth, to be the shining light upon the hill. And Ruth knew Chris, her beloved. And Chris said "Behold: I am the T-Bone, the Porterhouse, and the Filet Mignon. None can get to the Baked Potato but by me." And Ruth and Chris established their Steak House. You may think that choosing Ruth's Chris is of no greater significance or consequence than choosing any "steak house", then you are calling Ruth a liar. All other steak houses are the same, but Ruth's Chris is The Real Thing. Unlike any other person in history, Ruth has the Father-given powers to produce perfect steak.

You have been told. Once you have been told you cannot deny the Truth of Ruth.

All other religions say you can earn your way to God through your own efforts. Jesus teaches us to repent and walk with Him. When we stumble we get back up. Jesus taught that salvation is a free gift from God because God loves us. Even you, whose vitriol comes out in your comments here. If you repent of your hate and turn to God, you will find a loving Father waiting for you.

You hate Jesus because He testifies that your works are evil.

You keep being told that if you seek Him with a sincere heart, you will find Him. But you want some other kind of proof. What do you want us to do? Once again, if you seek Him with a sincere heart He will answer you.

You get angry at God because there is evil in the world, but when he tells you how to act you get mad at that too.

If you read the bible and seek God sincerely you will have your proof. Once again you have been told.

Cal Thomas' participation in the On Faith panel is like the difference between a "family" bookstore and a public library.

Muhammad is the difference.

See? I can make baseless claims too.

Jesus (and all those who inflated the myth) was a fraud. Your religion is like every other.

I don't think that Cal Thomas is very interested in any of this stuff. He has got Jesus, case closed, on every topic, issue and question. Great. God bless him. I am happy for him.

But why is he here?

Yes, all religions are alike, but Jesus Christ is the real thing.

- Cal Thomas

*******************************************

Yes, we know Jesus PBUH is real enough as a man and Prophet.

Hate to break this to you, Cal, but Christianity is just another religion. If it works for you, groovy. It doesn't work for everyone, any more than Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, atheism, Paganism, or any other -ism can be expected to work for everyone.

So much wrong in such a little statement. Lets start with Jesus. He wasn't all that. When you put Him to the test and ask Him, 'Hey, you are willing to turn water to wine for a party, could you please do it again, so that we aren't forced to kill you for being a fake?' what did he do? Nothing.
Why don't you explain why Jesus killed the fig tree in a fit of spite? Why don't you explain why following Jesus *had* to be the path of the sword that would turn brother on brother. More importantly, why does God's forgiveness have to come with his death? Why does killing someone completely blameless help redeem me?

Plenty of people believed in Joseph Smith's accounts, and yet you are not a Mormon. Likewise with any other holy book. What is it about the fictional character of Jesus that makes him seem better to you? Is it only because your parents told you when you were a child?

I do think all religious people need to take a step back and realize that no matter who you are, if you were raised by parents of a different religion, you stand a much, much better chance of being that than whatever you are now.

there is one creator god,
and for so the creator god love the world he sent just one religion .

what make the diference is,
one more religion make the disastar ,one less religion make the disastar,no religion make the disastar.

no need to nail any body to the cross to understand the above?

"If people think choosing Jesus to follow is of no greater significance or consequence than choosing a 'religious leader' to follow, then they are calling Jesus a liar because He said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.' (John 14:6)"

So what if some guy said, over 2000 years ago, "I'm IT. I'm the gatekeeper, and you can't come in unless you agree with me"?

The fact of someone in history making such a claim hardly argues the truth of that claim. In fact, this is the problem with all Christian "logic": it's circular.

WMARKW,

But what's truly impressive is how much idiocy he so consistently packs into a single paragraph. His BS-to-word ratio is, I mean, wow.

Gee, Cal managed to give the only truly wrong answer to such an unbelievably softball question.

No Jesus isn't the real thing; it's Mohammed; no, no, that's not right ... it's not Mohammed; it's Bhudda; no! that's not right either ... it's Moses ... it's gotta be Moses ... no, no, that's not it ... no it's, let's see, is it Confuscious? No! It's Gamesh ... is that right ... Thor? Zeus? Lucifer? No it can't be Lucifer ... he's the bad guy ... it says so right in the Apollo Creed ...