Print
The Dawkins Delusion
by Albert Mohler
There's even more creativity at this link:
The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title) by Prof Alister E McGrath
Reposted from: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Dawkins Delusion
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.
Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian evolution.
All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
Dawkins set out the basic framework of his worldview in best-selling books including, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and, most famously, The Selfish Gene. Now, in The God Delusion, Dawkins brings his attack on Christianity to a broader audience. Interestingly, Dawkins' new book is released close on the heels of two similar works. Fellow skeptics Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have written similar books released since late summer. Taken together, these three books represent something of a frontal attack upon the legitimacy of belief in God.
There are few surprises in The God Delusion. Dawkins is a gifted writer who is able to popularize scientific concepts, and he writes with an acerbic style that fits his purpose in this volume. His condescending and sarcastic tone set the stage for what he hopes will be a devastating attack upon theism.
Dawkins admits his "presumptuous optimism" in hoping that his book will cause persons to set aside their faith. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down," he asserts. Time will tell.
Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists--indeed all who really understand the issues at stake--are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. "Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply," he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain's Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. According to Dawkins, Rees "goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe.'" As Dawkins explains, Rees "has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a "deeply religious nonbeliever"--moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being.
As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence. "The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."
As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods. As he explains, "the most familiar" of these deities is Yahweh. Put simply, Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.
Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.
In one of the central chapters of his book, Dawkins attempts to accomplish two simultaneous purposes: to undermine the intellectual movement known as Intelligent Design and, in a twist of its logic, to suggest that belief in God is itself a refutation of the very notion of an intelligent design. As Dawkins sees it, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." As he sets out his case, he denies that there could be any legitimate basis for belief in God. The very notion of a supernatural agent flies directly in the face of his presuppositional naturalism. Therefore, by definition, such a God cannot exist and those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility.
In accordance with his own evolutionary theory, Dawkins acknowledges that the universe displays appearances of design. Nevertheless, he suggests that these appearances are false, and that any example of apparent design is actually due to the Darwinian engine of natural selection. He considers the traditional proof for God's existence offered by the philosophers and rejects each out of hand. Finally, he considers the argument that the existence of God can be proved by Scripture--but then launches a broadside attack upon Scripture itself.
When it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, Dawkins displays absolute amazement that any intelligent person could even entertain the notion that such teachings might be true. Pointing back to the nineteenth century, Dawkins asserts that the Victorian era was "the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment." He adds: "When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked."
Since Dawkins considers the existence of God to be nothing more than a scientific hypothesis--just like any other--he presents his case that "the factual premise of religion--the God Hypothesis--is untenable." In other words, "God almost certainly does not exist."
So why do so many persons believe in Him? Consistent with his evolutionary worldview, Dawkins must offer a purely naturalistic interpretation for the origin and function of religion. He argues that religion must be, like all other human phenomena, a product of Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, he understands that the existence of religious belief poses some interesting Darwinian questions. "Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste," Dawkins explains. Therefore, there must be some fascinating Darwinian explanation for how religious belief emerged and survives. Citing his colleague Daniel Dennett, Dawkins suggests that religious belief is "time-consuming, energy-consuming" and "often as extravagantly ornate as the plumage of a bird of paradise." He sees no good in it at all. "Thousands of people have been tortured for their loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a scarcely distinguishable alternative faith. Religion devours resources, sometimes on a massive scale. A medieval cathedral could consume a hundred man centuries in its construction, yet it was never used as a dwelling, or for any recognizable useful purpose."
In his own twist, Dawkins argues that belief in God is simply a by-product of some other evolutionary mechanism. He suggests that one possible source of belief in God (understood in purely physicalist and natural terms) is the need for the brains of children to accept on faith the teachings of their elders. Thus, he argues that evolution may have "psychologically primed" the human brain for some form of belief in God. Nevertheless, whatever function this may have served the process of evolution in the past, Dawkins now believes that it has become a dangerous liability.
"I surmise that religions, like languages, evolved with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering--and sometimes dangerous--richness of diversity that we observe. At the same time, it is possible that a form of natural selection, coupled with the fundamental uniformity of human psychology, sees to it that the diverse religions share significant teachers in common." In the end, Dawkins sees all these forms as dangerous.
Along the way, Dawkins insists that morality is not based in absolute truth but in a consequentialist form of reasoning that is itself a monument of evolutionary development. He plays with categories and concepts--no doubt intentionally--in order to confuse the question. Christians do not argue that those who believe in God always act in a way that is morally superior to those who do not. Atheists may behave better than Christians. This is to our shame, but it does not pose an intellectual challenge to the validity of the Christian faith. The more urgent question has to do with how any form of moral absolute--including even a prohibition on murder or incest--can survive if all morality is merely a natural phenomenon of human evolution. Dawkins simply embraces the relativity of morality, arguing that this explains why Christians are so dangerous. Believing in moral absolutes, Christians are led to defend the sanctity of human life at every level and to believe that, of all things, the Creator actually has set forth moral commandments and expectations concerning our sexuality. Dawkins rejects these ideas altogether.
At the same time, he suggests that the morality revealed in the Bible is actually immoral when judged against the enlightened standards of our current moral Zeitgeist. Furthermore, Dawkins argues that modern persons do not actually derive their morality from the Bible, no matter how much they may claim to do so.
In a sweeping rejection of biblical Christianity, Dawkins expresses outrage at the morality of both the Old and New Testaments. "I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity," he asserts. Dawkins would dispense with the Ten Commandments and replace these with a new set of commandments more attuned to modern times. Among his proposed commandments are these: "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business;" "Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species." Another of Dawkins' commandments hits close to home: "Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you."
Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist. Accordingly, he expresses incredulity at the fact that he is seen as a particularly ardent opponent of Christianity.
"Despite my dislike of gladiatorial contests, I seem somehow to have acquired a reputation for pugnacity towards religion. Colleagues who agree that there is no God, who agree that we do not need religion to be moral, and agree that we can explain the roots of religion and of morality in non-religious terms, nevertheless come back to me in gentle puzzlement. Why are you so hostile?"
Dawkins denies that he is a "fundamentalist atheist." "Maybe scientists are fundamentalists when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth.' But so is everybody else," he insists. "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere."
In the end, Richard Dawkins will surely fail in his quest to turn theists in to atheists. His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again. Dawkins is quick to label his intellectual adversaries as fundamentalists, but he conveniently redefines the term so that it does not apply to his own position. He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously.
The God Delusion is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies.
The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. "I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement," he insists. He even allows that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions" of organized religion, "and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals," he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions." Further: "We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage."All this raises more questions that Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?" It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.
The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title) by Prof Alister E McGrath
Reposted from: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=09/26/2006
Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Dawkins Delusion
"I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation," declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world's leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.
Dawkins is well known as an intellectual adversary to all forms of religious belief--and of Christianity in particular. He is one of the world's most prolific scientists, writing books for a popular audience and addressing his strident worldview of evolutionary theory to an expanding audience. Put simply, Richard Dawkins aspires to be the "devil's chaplain" of Darwinian evolution.
All this is what makes Dawkins' denial of a confrontational approach so ludicrous. It is simply false at face value. This is a man who has taken every conceivable opportunity to make transparently clear his unquestioned belief that the dominant theory of evolution renders any form of belief in God irrational, backward, and dangerous.
Dawkins set out the basic framework of his worldview in best-selling books including, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and, most famously, The Selfish Gene. Now, in The God Delusion, Dawkins brings his attack on Christianity to a broader audience. Interestingly, Dawkins' new book is released close on the heels of two similar works. Fellow skeptics Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have written similar books released since late summer. Taken together, these three books represent something of a frontal attack upon the legitimacy of belief in God.
There are few surprises in The God Delusion. Dawkins is a gifted writer who is able to popularize scientific concepts, and he writes with an acerbic style that fits his purpose in this volume. His condescending and sarcastic tone set the stage for what he hopes will be a devastating attack upon theism.
Dawkins admits his "presumptuous optimism" in hoping that his book will cause persons to set aside their faith. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down," he asserts. Time will tell.
Though The God Delusion is intended more as an attack upon theism than as a defense of evolutionary theory, the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind. In his opening chapter, he argues that most legitimate scientists--indeed all who really understand the issues at stake--are atheists of one sort or another. He defines the alternatives as between a stark atheism (such as that Dawkins himself represents) and a form of nonsupernatural religion, as illustrated by the case of Albert Einstein. "Great scientists of our time who sound religious usually turn out not to be so when you examine their beliefs more deeply," he explains. As examples, Dawkins offers not only Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking but also Martin Rees, currently Britain's Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. According to Dawkins, Rees "goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican . . . out of loyalty to the tribe.'" As Dawkins explains, Rees "has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists I have mentioned. He cites Einstein to the effect that he was a "deeply religious nonbeliever"--moved by the majesty of the cosmos but without any reference whatsoever to a supernatural being.
As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence. "The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."
As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods. As he explains, "the most familiar" of these deities is Yahweh. Put simply, Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.
Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.
In one of the central chapters of his book, Dawkins attempts to accomplish two simultaneous purposes: to undermine the intellectual movement known as Intelligent Design and, in a twist of its logic, to suggest that belief in God is itself a refutation of the very notion of an intelligent design. As Dawkins sees it, "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." As he sets out his case, he denies that there could be any legitimate basis for belief in God. The very notion of a supernatural agent flies directly in the face of his presuppositional naturalism. Therefore, by definition, such a God cannot exist and those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility.
In accordance with his own evolutionary theory, Dawkins acknowledges that the universe displays appearances of design. Nevertheless, he suggests that these appearances are false, and that any example of apparent design is actually due to the Darwinian engine of natural selection. He considers the traditional proof for God's existence offered by the philosophers and rejects each out of hand. Finally, he considers the argument that the existence of God can be proved by Scripture--but then launches a broadside attack upon Scripture itself.
When it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, Dawkins displays absolute amazement that any intelligent person could even entertain the notion that such teachings might be true. Pointing back to the nineteenth century, Dawkins asserts that the Victorian era was "the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment." He adds: "When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked."
Since Dawkins considers the existence of God to be nothing more than a scientific hypothesis--just like any other--he presents his case that "the factual premise of religion--the God Hypothesis--is untenable." In other words, "God almost certainly does not exist."
So why do so many persons believe in Him? Consistent with his evolutionary worldview, Dawkins must offer a purely naturalistic interpretation for the origin and function of religion. He argues that religion must be, like all other human phenomena, a product of Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, he understands that the existence of religious belief poses some interesting Darwinian questions. "Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste," Dawkins explains. Therefore, there must be some fascinating Darwinian explanation for how religious belief emerged and survives. Citing his colleague Daniel Dennett, Dawkins suggests that religious belief is "time-consuming, energy-consuming" and "often as extravagantly ornate as the plumage of a bird of paradise." He sees no good in it at all. "Thousands of people have been tortured for their loyalty to a religion, persecuted by zealots for what is in many cases a scarcely distinguishable alternative faith. Religion devours resources, sometimes on a massive scale. A medieval cathedral could consume a hundred man centuries in its construction, yet it was never used as a dwelling, or for any recognizable useful purpose."
In his own twist, Dawkins argues that belief in God is simply a by-product of some other evolutionary mechanism. He suggests that one possible source of belief in God (understood in purely physicalist and natural terms) is the need for the brains of children to accept on faith the teachings of their elders. Thus, he argues that evolution may have "psychologically primed" the human brain for some form of belief in God. Nevertheless, whatever function this may have served the process of evolution in the past, Dawkins now believes that it has become a dangerous liability.
"I surmise that religions, like languages, evolved with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering--and sometimes dangerous--richness of diversity that we observe. At the same time, it is possible that a form of natural selection, coupled with the fundamental uniformity of human psychology, sees to it that the diverse religions share significant teachers in common." In the end, Dawkins sees all these forms as dangerous.
Along the way, Dawkins insists that morality is not based in absolute truth but in a consequentialist form of reasoning that is itself a monument of evolutionary development. He plays with categories and concepts--no doubt intentionally--in order to confuse the question. Christians do not argue that those who believe in God always act in a way that is morally superior to those who do not. Atheists may behave better than Christians. This is to our shame, but it does not pose an intellectual challenge to the validity of the Christian faith. The more urgent question has to do with how any form of moral absolute--including even a prohibition on murder or incest--can survive if all morality is merely a natural phenomenon of human evolution. Dawkins simply embraces the relativity of morality, arguing that this explains why Christians are so dangerous. Believing in moral absolutes, Christians are led to defend the sanctity of human life at every level and to believe that, of all things, the Creator actually has set forth moral commandments and expectations concerning our sexuality. Dawkins rejects these ideas altogether.
At the same time, he suggests that the morality revealed in the Bible is actually immoral when judged against the enlightened standards of our current moral Zeitgeist. Furthermore, Dawkins argues that modern persons do not actually derive their morality from the Bible, no matter how much they may claim to do so.
In a sweeping rejection of biblical Christianity, Dawkins expresses outrage at the morality of both the Old and New Testaments. "I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity," he asserts. Dawkins would dispense with the Ten Commandments and replace these with a new set of commandments more attuned to modern times. Among his proposed commandments are these: "Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business;" "Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species." Another of Dawkins' commandments hits close to home: "Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you."
Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist. Accordingly, he expresses incredulity at the fact that he is seen as a particularly ardent opponent of Christianity.
"Despite my dislike of gladiatorial contests, I seem somehow to have acquired a reputation for pugnacity towards religion. Colleagues who agree that there is no God, who agree that we do not need religion to be moral, and agree that we can explain the roots of religion and of morality in non-religious terms, nevertheless come back to me in gentle puzzlement. Why are you so hostile?"
Dawkins denies that he is a "fundamentalist atheist." "Maybe scientists are fundamentalists when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth.' But so is everybody else," he insists. "I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere."
In the end, Richard Dawkins will surely fail in his quest to turn theists in to atheists. His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again. Dawkins is quick to label his intellectual adversaries as fundamentalists, but he conveniently redefines the term so that it does not apply to his own position. He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously.
The God Delusion is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies.
The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. "I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement," he insists. He even allows that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions" of organized religion, "and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals," he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions." Further: "We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage."All this raises more questions that Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?" It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 245 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #1263 by Theo on October 11, 2006 at 4:09 am
I'm a bit shocked, as well - in comparison to most of the items at Crosswalk, this was more a recitation of the book's contents than a denounciation.When the author of the article does lob a few questions at the end, they're as lazy and unconvincing as the usual theist arguments.
Looks like actually reading the book in question may have given the essay's author some things to think about. Judging by the lackluster ending, who writes his check is still foremost on his mind.
3. Comment #1264 by RascoHeldall on October 11, 2006 at 4:15 am
It is interesting how anti-Dawkins reviewers always have to resort to (what amounts to) lying in order to give the impression of robust rebuttal. Can't ANYONE counter Dawkins' arguments honestly?4. Comment #1290 by Pamela on October 11, 2006 at 7:15 am
I have alwasy felt a disconnectedness to my religious upbringing, so I found this book to be fascinating. I agree that the critique is based upon lies and contrivances.The question as to why people would want to hang onto traditions related to beliefs that amount to fiction is easily answered. Many people hold onto traditions regardless of where they came from. Though I agree with Dawkins, I still plan to put up a tree in December sans religious ornaments to celebrate the coming of winter and the new year. All traditions morph somewhat over time. What is important is the meaning we give to them.
5. Comment #1309 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:27 am
Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.
If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?
Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?
I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.
6. Comment #1310 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:28 am
Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.
If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?
Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?
I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.
7. Comment #1311 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:30 am
Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.
If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?
Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?
I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.
8. Comment #1312 by Chris on October 11, 2006 at 9:49 am
If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to "a treasured heritage?"If he can't listen to Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (for example) and appreciate it as a great work of art, regardless of its religious content, I pity him. Imagine all the great non-Christian art he must be missing out on. Indeed, I can actively despise the composer's personal beliefs while still appreciating his art; does Mohler want to claim that we can't listen to Wagner because he was a racist? Those works of art and traditions were created by humans; that's why humanists can respect and appreciate them.
In the same way, I can appreciate the architecture of a cathedral as a work of art, because it is. But a cathedral is also a building, and so I'd appreciate it even more if it were used for a purpose that benefited our species, such as a library or a hospital.
I wonder what the quote at the start of the review looked like in context. I'd bet my shirt there was a ", but..." right after it, explaining why circumstances impel Dawkins into the metaphorical arena, which the reviewer snipped because it would be unfavorable to his attempt to portray "Darwin's rottweiler" as rabid.
9. Comment #1313 by Kevin Ronayne on October 11, 2006 at 10:06 am
Once you get past the opening 6 or so introductory paragraphs, the rest of this review is mostly lies, half-truths, mistakes, misconceptions, misreprentations and unwarranted conclusions. Whatever happened to 'Thou shalt not bear false witness'? When it comes to defending religion from criticism, it really does seem that the truth is the first casualty!If I wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this review, I think I could easily be here until midnight (note: it's currently 5:30 pm). Just a few choice items will do for now:
"... the framework of evolution is never far from Dawkins' mind" - and why, oh why should it by?
"As Dawkins explains, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being's existence" - no they don't, they question it, and find the evidence very unpersuasive.
"Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God." - reading through this review, I can't say I understand either.
"He ... is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution .. " - this is a lie, pure and simple - either that, or he has not done proper reasearch, and is therefore guilty of lying by pretending to know. Anyone who had read Richard Dawkins would know that he believes on the basis of evidence, and has readily stated (and still does) that he would change his mind if suitable evidence ever came to light.
"Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist" - very amazingly indeed, since the review had earlier quoted the line that "God almost certainly does not exist", which is of course not the language of an asbolutist.
I can only echo the sentiments of fellow commentators: Is this the best Albert Mohler can do? Along with this and loudmouth debaters like David Quinn, it seems as if serious opposition to Richard Dawkins is pretty thin on the ground right now.
10. Comment #1322 by Jonathan Dore on October 11, 2006 at 11:53 am
It's a familiar trope from religionists such as Mohler (another example is Alister McGrath's interview here: www.stnews.org/News-201.htm) that Dawkins spends all his time banging on obsessively about religion instead of fulfilling his "public understanding of science" role. In fact, a glance at his published work shows this to be grossly untrue: from the Selfish Gene more than 30 years ago onward, all of his books have been firmly about science, and more recently the public understanding of science - even the "Devil's Chaplain" anthology had only a small section devoted to the effects of religion. Many people would probably be amazed to discover that "The God Delusion" is actually his first book on the subject. Why the misperception? Probably because most people's view of RD is shaped by his broadcasting appearances rather than his books, and TV and Radio producers love controversy more than anything else, because it "sells". If anyone doubts it, they should ask themselves why Dawkins was given a TV series this year to talk about religion, but has never in the last three decades been given a TV series to explain the basics of evolution.11. Comment #1357 by Riley on October 11, 2006 at 3:42 pm
------"[Dawkins]insists. 'I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere.' [...] He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously."
-------
This pretty well sums-up for me the argument over who is the fundamentalist. I wonder if Albert Mohler preaches "young-earth" theology along with his creationist dogma.
. . .
12. Comment #1358 by Riley on October 11, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Yep, Mohler is a blind faith young earth creationist:Time Magazine interview: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html
...probably safe to presume his subtle reframing of Dawkin's stated positions are intentional.
. . .
14. Comment #1374 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Thanks to the editorial staff at Richard Dawkins.Net for putting this review on the site. I doubt if Mr Mohler and his organisation would put any opposing or contrary arguments and reviews on their site's.I am guessing about that I have no desire to go and find out.
Mohlers tone throughout the review is that of someone who is examining a child who has just been outside puddle jumping and is covered in mud and very happy. While he, the esteemed examiner, regards the child at a full arms length with a surgically gloved hands and gown and a mask lest, god forbid, he become contaminated.
Poor man I guess someone prominent in the theist camp had to review this book, looks like he drew the short straw.
15. Comment #1375 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Thanks to the editorial staff at Richard Dawkins.Net for putting this review on the site. I doubt if Mr Mohler and his organisation would put any opposing or contrary arguments and reviews on their site's.I am guessing about that I have no desire to go and find out.
Mohlers tone throughout the review is that of someone who is examining a child who has just been outside puddle jumping and is covered in mud and very happy. While he, the esteemed examiner, regards the child at a full arms length with a surgically gloved hands and gown and a mask lest, god forbid, he become contaminated.
Poor man I guess someone prominent in the theist camp had to review this book, looks like he drew the short straw.
16. Comment #1376 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Thanks to the editorial staff at Richard Dawkins.Net for putting this review on the site. I doubt if Mr Mohler and his organisation would put any opposing or contrary arguments and reviews on their site's.I am guessing about that I have no desire to go and find out.
Mohlers tone throughout the review is that of someone who is examining a child who has just been outside puddle jumping and is covered in mud and very happy. While he, the esteemed examiner, regards the child at a full arms length with a surgically gloved hands and gown and a mask lest, god forbid, he become contaminated.
Poor man I guess someone prominent in the theist camp had to review this book, looks like he drew the short straw.
17. Comment #1377 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Apologises for posting it three times, I get a window saying error.Not sure what is going on.
Any I'll just add Mohler sounds like a victorian headmaster, his pincer spectacles balanced on his nose as he glares out at this improper book, and wonders how dare he.
18. Comment #1399 by Martin on October 12, 2006 at 4:41 am
Randy,Even Richard himself doesn't advocate the burning of the bible, but states that the bible (albeit fiction) is a great work of art and of massive literary value. If one takes it as fiction it actually makes a pretty fair fantasy novel.
It is only the religious zealots and fundamentalist that go around burning other peoples' belief's books.
Richard's book has actually made me want to go and read the bible, since i've never actually read it fully. With my new found conviction that god probably doesn't exist, i can enjoy the bible like i'd enjoy any other fantasy novel.
Unfortunately, faith (I can really only speak for Christianity) has its inbuilt defence mechanisms. Chief among these is the re-nforcement of conviction by doubt. There is the notion of a "challenging" God, who places obstacles in the path of the faithful, in order to circuitously "strengthen" their belief. Sadly, I fear most theists who make it through this book will interpret their own doubt as such a challenge and pray for greater faith. Now if that's not good memetic engineering I don't know what is!
20. Comment #1407 by Anonymous on October 12, 2006 at 7:39 am
"It is just astounding to me that anyone who reads Mr. Dawkins' book, if they were theists, wouldn't use their bible for fire wood and wake up to the gorgeous reality of life. People often ask me how is it possible to see any beauty in life once God is done away with. I always say that it's like seeing the world for the first time. I love the connection that I feel to every plant, animal, and cosmos around me. I prefer the feeling of that connection over it's alternative, that I have dominion over it."Randy, that is exactly how I view the universe as well. Without religious blinders, one can see the physical universe in all it's awesome splendor, and to be both humbled and amazed at the natural processes that formed and shaped it. To know you are a part of it, in the most elemental way, is exhilarating.
No banal, self-serving religious fantasy can even approach it's grandeur.
Every year, around December, I bring out my DVD Collector's series of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", to celebrate his life and achievements during the anniversary of his untimely passing.. One of the finest works ever produced on television, in it the brilliant astronomer and humanist shared his love affair with science, and the heroes throughout history who have added to man's understanding of the cosmos. Dawkins often refers to Sagan, and he does Sagan's memory the highest honor by taking up his torch as a powerful voice for the scientific method, and a desperately needed proponent for reason in a world that seems to be going mad.
NewScientist of 7 October has on page 50 another review by one Mary Midgley. Her tack is that the lack of religion has not been beneficial, and she goes on from there. Her evidence: Pol Pot, Stalin, and yes, good old Adolf who's regime was based on Christianity. With that error, I wonder about her abilities....
23. Comment #1468 by Phil on October 12, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Wanna know why God hasn’t disappeared? Nah I cant answer that because the rebuttal will be a barrage of jokes and insults. Dawkins is a religious, fundamentalist and downright offensive preacher whose main weapon to destroy his opponent (religion in general) is humour and controversy, he is becoming the very character he is trying to destroy and you guys seem to be eating it from his "nothing, BANG! complex coexisting inter-working systems" plate.Has anybody in here hard evidence explaining the point of origin? Is God not even a possibility or a theory? Why this determination to get rid of God? The bible clearly states this would happen and you guys are making this happen as we speak making the bible all the more accurate in its scriptures considering it’s a few thousand years old. If you "believe" nothing made everything by itself from an atom to the largest stars then you must seriously consider changing your belief before attacking creation because it is scientifically impossible for nothing to explode. Matter can’t be created or destroyed apparently so where did it come from? In fact ...
(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:
(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
(6) How did life develop from non-life?
(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?
(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?
(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)
(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again is there some sort of a plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )
(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:
(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?
Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Look around and you must agree that sin or something wrong is everywhere in the world. Get rid of God and you will get rid of a meaningful philosophy. Science shows us how to build atom bombs but does not show us when or "if" we can use them as a means of defence, power or control. You can rely on atheistic philosophy if you want but it has no moral base (remember nothing then BANG!) for right or wrong and falls flat to the glory of God and the teachings of Jesus. If you refute the teachings of Jesus then you counter argue with Dawkins and his opinion on the bible. You guys attack religion with passion but using references from the same people who cant even tell if Pluto is a planet let alone where it came from.
I think the earth is young but so what, this is a search for truth and no one cant take away what you believe atheistic or theistic but please do be careful when supporting the likes of Dawkins as his fundamental opinions are dangerous as people take their beliefs to an emotional level and a challenge to that is division and "hatred" which we must avoid at all costs. I would certainly refute any Christian organisation that boasts proudly to laugh and alienate any individual for his own beliefs and I think you guys should be the same but that is only for you to decide.
24. Comment #1484 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 2:40 am
Phil Ive tried to answer your “questions” as best as possible however I must state that I think that you wont listen to any proof if it came up and slapped you in the chest a few times.(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
A) Do you know what kind of process is needed to create fossils? It involves the animal dying in exactly the right place, covered with the right sediment and left undisturbed for millions of year for the fossilisation to occur. But don’t let that get in the way also theEarth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the Galaxy’s coreand not the other way round.
(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:
A) Creationism? Everything was created by one deity at the same time?
But before that he created other animals/dinosaurs as a trail run or just a cosmic joke to give humans some other reason to kill each other due to religion
(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
A) Stars mainly
4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
A) Because without them they wouldn’t be the elements and quantum physics is such that we’re not sure whether an orbit is the way they work or just a simplistic (and wrong) way of trying to explain how stuff works in the quantum world
(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
A) So basically because we cant understand yet God must have done it. Put stuff together with enough heat and pressure and everything can be created.
(6) How did life develop from non-life?
A) The Spaghetti monster Everything is made from atoms what is life?
(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
A) Ikea
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
A) Yes survival of the best designs for the appropriate niches needed- Why isn’t it the best way?
(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
A) High we live in an infinitely large universe with a infinite number of planets and solar systems and therefore it will happen somewhere at sometime
(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?
A) Would you prefer one where they don’t reproduce? Two sexes mean that there is less chance of inbreeding and actually strengthens the species. Inbreeding is bad and leads to interesting side effects look at the European royal families 100 to 500 years ago or Alabama
(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
A) There is genetic mutations during gestation and to the eggs and sperm so it’s a process that takes time but occurs
(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?
A) The organs develop in the species over the time the mutations that cope better with the environment allow that individual to survive and prosper better than those with different versions that genetic code is then passed on. How would you explain the Appendix? One of God’s oversights or a joke?
(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)
A) They do. THEY. DEVELOP. OVER. A. LONG. PERIOD. OF. TIME. (Thousands if not millions of years)
(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again is there some sort of a plan here?
A) Is it exactly 50%? Also see the infinitly Large universe thingy
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )
A) Your further evidence makes no sense? Whats your point? Laws of Gravity were produced by Newton to describe the interactions that he saw around him. At present nothing better has been produced.
(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
A) Nuclear Fusion
(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
A) Whereas Intelligent Design isn’t?????
(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:
A) That’s not a question that’s just statement of belief
(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
A) The age of the planet versus what the Bible tell us for a start. Wheres your evidence to the contrary?
(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?
A) Whereas as intelligent designates you never do a thing like that? Oh no
Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Look around and you must agree that sin or something wrong is everywhere in the world. Get rid of God and you will get rid of a meaningful philosophy. Science shows us how to build atom bombs but does not show us when or "if" we can use them as a means of defence, power or control. You can rely on atheistic philosophy if you want but it has no moral base (remember nothing then BANG!) for right or wrong and falls flat to the glory of God and the teachings of Jesus. If you refute the teachings of Jesus then you counter argue with Dawkins and his opinion on the bible. You guys attack religion with passion but using references from the same people who cant even tell if Pluto is a planet let alone where it came from.
A) But sorry the bible cant tell us whether Pluto’s a planet or not. Tell me is it? It’s a small rock on the outer edge of an insignificant solar system in an insignificant corner of one galaxy in a infinitely large universe. If you need a security blankey to make your life feel better, fine, but please don’t try and rationalise it and tell us that it’s the “supreme truth". Religion has been created to try and explain stuff that happens. Why Thunder? God’s angry, why lightning? Its God’s wrath. And on and on and on and on. Religion was created by humanity, run by humanity and corrupted by humanity with no outside help im afraid.
Right thats off my chest Great Book
Anything that upsets religious fruitcakes is good by me
25. Comment #1491 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 3:30 am
Billy.Earth flat? The bible teaches the world is round and hangs on nothing "he sits on the circle of the earth."
I cant reply now guys but will be back later or tomorrow. I just want to point out your answers where not scientific fact facts but FAITH driven theroies. Ill explain later but thanx for all the attenion lol
Later.
27. Comment #1519 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 10:26 am
Where does it say the shape of the earth CORRECT! It dosnt say any where its flat either?. The circle to me would indcate "round".Anyway Ive taken a few hours to write a rebuttle and it is open to suggestion.
1 Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
A) Do you know what kind of process is needed to create fossils? It involves the animal dying in exactly the right place, covered with the right sediment and left undisturbed for millions of year for the fossilisation to occur. But don’t let that get in the way also theEarth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the Galaxy’s coreand not the other way round.
Rebuttal) If this is the case then archaeology has discovered time travelling cowboys. There was a fossilized cowboy boot with foot and bone intact uncovered and it was completely fossilized. The truth is fossils can occur over decades through running water and starvation of oxygen, not millions of years. There is a lot of scientific evidence (too many to list) to prove it. You need to revise you understanding of fossil structures and take note this is based on science not religion. I tell there was a world wide flood with out the bibles interpretation as there are trillions of fossils buried in many layers of strata formed all over the world through hydrologic sorting, with out the bible without religion and with out a one sided view point, this is also backed up by a few hundred different flood accounts from all over the world in different religions.
2 Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:
A) Creationism? Everything was created by one deity at the same time?
But before that he created other animals/dinosaurs as a trail run or just a cosmic joke to give humans some other reason to kill each other due to religion
Rebuttal) Mankind’s oldest recorded source tells us God made the heavens and the earth in six days not at the same time. He did this using science not miracles and we can see it using science. I read earlier that removing God opens ones eyes and is like being reborn. This is utter nonsense and shows how little understanding individual atheists have of creation. I know people who where bitter atheists but became Christians and had little words to describe the majesty of the heavens. You assume religion is a reason for people to kill each other. Im born and raised in east Belfast and have learned it’s the idiots in power who use religion as a mask for power and control of state and law. The north of Ireland is a British state but the south is Irish republican. Most conflicts are about leadership and nationality. The same can be applied to the west bank and the Gaza strip. Also you must realise that the three main religions (Muslim, Jewish and Christianity) where linked at some point in the past and follow the same creator. Dinosaurs were the ancient dragons, also backed up by different accounts and stories of dragon slaying around the world stretching from America to China.
3 Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
A) Stars mainly
Rebuttal) Quite a jump! Stars? How did they make them, were stars born with this ability? What I’m getting at is there were no stars before stars and stars according to science haven’t always been there so where has these complex elements come from? Ill tell you kindly what naturalistic evolution tells you, they came from nothing at all! (and I’m mad).
4 How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
A) Because without them they wouldn’t be the elements and quantum physics is such that we’re not sure whether an orbit is the way they work or just a simplistic (and wrong) way of trying to explain how stuff works in the quantum world
Rebuttal) I agree, they wouldn’t be elements it’s that simple but they are and I want to know why. If you ask a Christian a hard question such as the above and he answers “God did it” then I agree that’s not science but you would do the same by stating “it formed by random chance from nothing!” then I’m afraid you aren’t convincing me away from the God hypothesis.
5 Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
A) So basically because we can’t understand yet God must have done it. Put stuff together with enough heat and pressure and everything can be created.
Rebuttal) I knew you would say that and I’m happy enough with the basic “I don’t know” but again that isn’t convincing enough to move from God. I reckon God still stands strong in this argument and you are open to acknowledge that.
6 How did life develop from non-life?
A) The Spaghetti monster Everything is made from atoms what is life?
Rebuttal) This one is classic genius. Life is you mate. Your personality, your thoughts and reasoning process, your will to live and as such to take part in this discussion intellectually. Deny that and you have lost your argument as this topic includes heavily philosophical world views. All those people that have lived and died, came and gone and here you are, for a short little period of time throwing it away and denying the fact you can chose right and wrong. I don’t need God to scientifically appear in front of me. Where that the case then I would do good works regardless. The point here is God you father can see you doing good on your own if you can admit you’re born into a sinful world your father will cherish you. God created life. God made us in his image and we can use examples of our own being to understand it takes life to create life. Not nothing to everything. If you are trying to convince readers scientifically you view then don’t blind the answer with humour because you didn’t answer it scientifically at all because science has only one answer “intelligence must hast done it” but Dawkins wants rid of God as his opinions of religion is bad examples and this is dangerous so as of yet its “I don’t know”.
Atoms are non life and can’t live or think the way you do. This is simple conclusive science and should not need to be explained! If you want me to go on you are made of atoms and
7 Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
A) Ikea
Rebuttal) Are you trying to turn people from science all together! These emotions although apparent in animals can lead to murder or pain as our given intellects make us aware of death and differs us from animals. Your answer is totally separate from science and there are theories that you could have demonstrated here but as this leans to philosophy you chose to avoid it. My answer is I can’t explain scientifically why various sounds can make people weep, dance or laugh but it’s as real as you are and very common and in a world like this which “I would call sinful” it becomes dangerous.
8 What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
A) Yes survival of the best designs for the appropriate niches needed- Why isn’t it the best way?
Rebuttal) That it is and I can tell you that since the evolution theory is a random process with no reason or control then its absolutely absurd to suggest it happened by itself from absolutely nothing. Evolution isn’t a creative force and I would like to see how sight/vision evolved. You must understand that you believe all animals today (insects, birds, mammals and fish had come from the first mirror image creature to emerge from a one sided creature that emerged from a single celled organism. Where is this creature? When did it live? Who did it mate and with what did it mate with? These questions arise because like most naturalist evolutionists you base answer to questions like this on FAITH driven theories that have yet to be proven, you like Dawkins have a religious attitude and you don’t even know it.
The difference between me and you is I can admit mine is religious and I will change my view if I’m convinced through testable workable demonstrations to show God doesn’t exist. Not bad examples of fundamental religious leaders and quotations from the bible without there meanings as Dawkins uses but hard evidence to support: nothing, BANG! Complex everything ie, molecules, stars, life, meaning, thought, matter, senses or as I call it “creation itself”. If you can then following the likes of Dawkins is going the wrong way about it as he’s unwittingly wedging a distance between science and philosophy with flawed one sided arguments standing at an emotional level to people where lies there own views. It has nothing to do with science and I know for a fact that there are atheists who will agree with me on this point.
9 What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
A) High we live in an infinitely large universe with a infinite number of planets and solar systems and therefore it will happen somewhere at sometime
Rebuttal) I can’t understand how someone can be so arrogant of his/hers own existence. You call your answer to that question science? You are here. You can think for yourself. To you, you’re a miracle of existence but you don’t understand you are so much more and to do so you must go back in time in your own belief to see so much random chance as the answer of a naturalistic point of view to create you is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. Single celled, single sexed organisms can’t produce 2 sexes. If one produced a male then what will it reproduce with. If it’s a female then it would need male fertilisation and that alone is extremely complex let alone the male appearing coincidentally alongside the female and isn’t the single sex logically more likely to survive? You haven’t answered the question scientifically and if you could then you could answer where is the creature and when did it live? And most important did it mate by itself until it developed genitals for copulation with a slightly different creature that also developed the right genitals receive this copulation? (Scientifically sex sounds really boring!). If you don’t know them this will hardly count creation “in the beginning he made them male and female”.
10 Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?
A) Would you prefer one where they don’t reproduce? Two sexes mean that there is less chance of inbreeding and actually strengthens the species. Inbreeding is bad and leads to interesting side effects look at the European royal families 100 to 500 years ago or Alabama
You give the solution to the being of 2 sexes but not the answer “why?” As I said earlier is it not logical for a single celled organism to dominate survival, think about it. Ill tell you why there is 2 sexes. God made them. Intelligence made them. Creative thought made them. Is there no room for this reason in science?
11 If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
A) There is genetic mutations during gestation and to the eggs and sperm so it’s a process that takes time but occurs.
How religious was that answer “it takes time”. Lots and lots of time. Millions and millions of years. Billions and billions of years. Prove it! Please, not it may have or could have or it’s considered a possibility but hard proof because if you can’t then this is not the time to get rid of God. God did it is still more scientifically vesicle than random chance did it and ill stand by my side of this discussion unconvinced. I wont argue with the areas of science that come together with one conclusion as this is not a conspiracy to conclude the age is billions but it does come from people who will try to get rid of God and that’s a statement made clears in the end times in the bible. More reason to study it I say.
12 How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?
The organs develop in the species over the time the mutations that cope better with the environment allow that individual to survive and prosper better than those with different versions that genetic code is then passed on. How would you explain the Appendix? One of God’s oversights or a joke?
Rebuttal) LOL the Appendix is neither of the above mentioned but forms part of the immune system and can be removed although your body will have a declined defence against infection but will work harder to fight around it. I take it you biology needs brushed a bit. Your coccyx can also be removed but is important as there are little muscles on it that help us produce waste. There are no vestigial organs. The point of this question however does not refer to the vestigial argument but the important organs. IL re-summarise the question. From a single celled organism, how did all it organs form and if you have the answer then it should include examples of animal uncovered. What age they were when developing such organs and how did they live with a brain, heart or lung? How did they survive so long until the other organs developed ie heart to pump blood which also had to form individually from each other? If you answer with we don’t know yet then why agree to throw God away because of bad examples set by certain individuals?
13 Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)
A) They do. THEY. DEVELOP. OVER. A. LONG. PERIOD. OF. TIME. (Thousands if not millions of years)
Rebuttal) Prove it then (has it been tested in a lab?) and don’t give a theory driven theory driven FAITH driven theory for an answer. Long ago and far away (there’s a fairy tail coming next)
14 What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again is there some sort of a plan here? To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.
A) Is it exactly 50%? Also see the infinitly Large universe thingy
Rebuttal) I can and can you tell us how it got here since your confident God isn’t vesicle. Nothing, COSMIC BURP. Everything. I’m afraid I can’t help any one here if they don’t come out of the naturalistic evolution box and open to logic but let no religious or atheistic take away your belief its yours no matter how stupid and it is up to you if you want to decide where to go or which path to take. Remember there is intellects all over the world that study and follow both side of this argument.
15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )
A) Your further evidence makes no sense? Whats your point? Laws of Gravity were produced by Newton to describe the interactions that he saw around him. At present nothing better has been produced.
Rebuttal) Sorry? I don’t understand your answer. Simplifying the question is asking as gravity and matter inter-work and the process is established so well that our existence is impossible without it then how did gravity arrive to work with matter? If nothing exploded and created matter then was the law of gravity which is seemingly based on mathematics (as is the universe) produced with impossible calculations through the same bang. Is it not reasonable to suggest this co-relationship between the 2 are impossible through naturalistic bang nonsense. Logically I think it is but if you have evidence to rebuttal my claim then please show how matter and a law of physics can arrive from this scenario, please include all the elements we see today and how they can arrive from nothing before writing off God.
16 Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?
A) Nuclear Fusion
Rebuttal) Fusion in stars? This is a chicken and egg problem of epic proportions because you need energy to create stars so what came first the fusion to create the energy or the energy to create the stars where fusion is present? While we’re on the subject people knew there is more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the beach, long before telescopes or astronomy came a knocking. I wonder where they got that information from as we can only see a small micro percentage of what is out there from the naked eye.
Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.
A) Whereas Intelligent Design isn’t?????
Rebuttal) Im glad you have answered this they way you did. Intelligent Design is based upon faith from people who can admit its faith. We are not as closed minded as a closed minded naturalistic atheist would suggest. By your answer you would then I assume agree with the point of the question as you have reflected that back to my point of view which is also true and relevant of the question. Both are incoherent and both are unproven. They share remarkable evidence and remarkable unanswered mysteries with concluding flaws.
The reason I chose a creation event is because it seems scientifically more viable and less a mystery not to mention the philosophical side which out weights the nothing created everything by itself view. The point of this discussion however is in support of a spearheaded attack into those who don’t follow the same ideas. Both have intellects who call each other fools but both are flawed. Atheistic flaws include absolutely no factual answers scientifically when dealing with the subject on the point of origin and its following on process and the creation account is BASED upon by simple undeniable faith from one of the oldest references in recorded history that merges the 3 main religious groups into the same 1 God. Both also have theories and good points but to spearhead an attack on either is wrong.
I don’t want creation in text books unless it is stated as a possible theory but I think the same should be done for evolution as it is ram raided into peoples heads as if it were a proven fact or even an assortment of both?. Some atheist scientists don’t accept evolution as there are too many gaps. I would like to point out however that text books are seemly written by those like Dawkins who want no creation event and no God. There is nothing wrong with this however where it not for the fact that this will hit people at the philosophical emotional side and it will hit hard. This approach is destructive and will offend and distance anyone looking to science for answers. You think you’ve seen raving religious loons then you isn’t seen nothing yet.
18 Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:
A) That’s not a question that’s just statement of belief
Rebuttal) Ok. How the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution did arise: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life? I would need conclusive evidence to get rid of God and I would need dates and how the forces of the universe got created without God from nothing. I don’t want it may have could have or probably happened like this. Everything from a hydrogen base that came from nothing? Come on.
19 Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?
A) The age of the planet versus what the Bible tell us for a start. Where’s your evidence to the contrary?
Rebuttal) The evidence is being researched by the other side of the argument but since you are to proud and close minded you wont see it, those faith driven zealots no nothing about science. What’s you age of the planet evidence? You showed no evidence here and if you want to measure by Carbon dating or such like then you’re misguided as it is impossible to measure after 30000 years. You believe the world is old by those trying to get rid of God but you cant from this discussion state God may be scientifically viable which is plain ignorant of science and differs from those who think openly. Please remember that science is about the discovery of information and increasing knowledge in the operations of the known universe.
Do not give in to one sided studies from people like Dawkins who only has one agenda. Scientifically Dawkins is a genius and is comparable to one of the top intellects in the world but don his philosophical hat to discuss issues like the point of origin and he is at his weakest. He is only human after all but he favours naturalistic evolution and his spearheading of the other idea is a concerning move from his professional intellectual character. Remember this, his view not based upon proven scientific facts but the idea to destroy not only the bad parts of religion but its sources, its ideas and its wonderful philosophies. I admit faith and believe Christ will return before we destroy ourselves and that every single man and woman will be judged. Rapists and murderers will have to do some explaining for their freewill given actions and not admitting sin will be the downfall individuals. I’m not going to see the kingdom of heaven because I’m good, I’m going because I’ve been forgiven and I don’t have to pray so many times a day, I don’t have to sit a certain way and I certainly don’t listen to religious zealots preaching their version of events. I can choose my own logical interpretations and chose freely to decide on either side. Does anyone even agree?
20 Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?
A) Whereas as intelligent designates you never do a thing like that? Oh no
Rebuttal) Oh yes. I’m afraid we are pretty much on the same boat only mine makes more sense (nothing BANG eh, you get the point). Thank you for admitting we both correlate in the same manner of thinking and sense in an understanding of sciences explanations of the trickiest of subjects.
It was never my intention to tell you if Pluto was a planet or not that purely up to those who are try to dethrone God. I can however tell you where it came from but that delves into theory and philosophy.
Heres another question.
How did people know there were springs in the sea possibly thousands of years before modernised science discovered them?
29. Comment #1527 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 11:21 am
I have to point you a few sources Billy that can put your mind at rest and hopefully clear things up in regards to the flat earth idea.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9711.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flatearth.html
No one can force you to go there and listen to these deluded nut cases who accually study the bible and blindly refuse science which apparently shows: nothing-Bang-everything.
30. Comment #1535 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 11:47 am
Brian I hope you can understand then that the scientific world view supports the bang nonsence because we cant actually see God in a form as such but please dont be deluded by your own faith in the bang (theres no vacum in space for a bang either, hell there was no space before anything apparently).Have you seen any evidence upstaging the creation event in support for evolution or the big bang on T.V or in science journals. I havnt, Im searching for credible evidence. Yet I Know love. I know a mathmatical design for a coherant universe that excludes flaws which would undermine our very existence. Most importantly in this universe we can define right and wrong which is inexplainable through science. We can split atoms but should we use it as a weapon? There is morals and an understanding to them.
Please anybody here me out I AM NOT AGAINST SCIENCE. I DONT THINK SCIENCE JOURNAL SHOULD CONTAIN CREATION OTHER THAT A THEROY AS THIS IS A PHILOSPHY. I AM AGAINST THIS IDEA TO REMOVE RELIGION WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE AND IM CERTINALY NOT IN FAVOUR OF ANY ZELAOT LEADER SPEARHEADING ATTACKS AND HUMILATING THE BELIEFS OF PEOPLE THAT HOLD THEM NEAR AND DEAR TO THEIR HEARTS JUST TO REMOVE THE BAD INDIVIDUALS WHO STAIN ITS WONDERFUL VALUES FOR POWER OR CONTROL, ITS LIKE DUCK HUNTING WITH AN ATOM BOMB. ITS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE. EVOLUTION IS A VIRUS OF SCIENCE AND CLOGGS EVERY POSSIBLE EXPLAINATION WITH A PRE-DETERMINED ANSWER OR EXCUSE TO PROVE ITS INVISABLE EXISTENCE, I ADMIT CREATIONIST DO THE SAME BUT WHO IS RIGHT? Nothing does not just explode and if there was something then what was it and can we prove it?
Please dont take this to heart because science not to be taken to an emotional level as its a quest for understanding and I believe the world would be a medicore place without it but understand we cant merge morals with science, they mix like oil and water.
31. Comment #1541 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 12:09 pm
* Why is Dawkins such a big hero now days? Read through these and as what was stated earlier by a cheery atheist with something similar, no matter what the writer says, the critic will not read the materials key points, just criticise it from one deluded view. I do say though hit this with an open mind.1. In addition to being a great writer, Dawkins is so quotable, so entertaining, so controversial and colorful because he is a fundamentalist zealot, albeit of the atheist variety. This makes for great press and wonderful book sales, but it is hardly a compliment when it comes to the matter of careful comment about complex matters like religious faith. All the modesty, nuance, controls, and qualifications that characterize careful scientific work vanish when Dawkins dons his philosopher's hat. I have to believe that many of his scientific colleagues cringe at his bombastic and pompous pronouncements, however entertaining. Admittedly, this is an issue of style, but at some point style and substance merge. In engineering lingo, there is a problem with Dawkins's signal to noise ratio. In cards we would say that he has overplayed his hand.
2. Dawkins seems to defend "scientism," the belief that science is the only or best source of reliable knowledge about what is worth knowing. In his book River Out of Eden, for example, he writes that "all my books have been devoted to expounding and exploring the almost limitless power of the Darwinian principle." But as my friend and neuroscientist from Stanford, Bill Newsome, has observed, many, maybe even most, of life's most important questions cannot be answered by the scientific method: What is love? Should I get married? Is it sensible to bear children? How should we assess scientific explanation? We rightly do not expect science to answer these or many other important questions.
3. Closely related to this, many have observed that you cannot move "from is to ought." Einstein, for example, insisted upon this point. That is, science tells us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be. It can build a bomb, but not advise us when and whether to drop it. It can describe the acoustics of a Mozart symphony, but not explain why that symphony moves us to tears.
4. Science limits itself to empirical evidence, which makes much of it so compelling, but empirical evidence yields only limited information. Further, even such an ostensibly objective act as "empirical observation" is both theory laden and "tainted" by the subjective knower. In addition, like all disciplines, science operates with its own unprovable assumptions (eg, that the world is rational). In this sense Dawkins, and all scientists, are people of faith. When recently asked, "what do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Dawkins responded, "I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe."4 As an article of faith, fair enough. As a "proof" demanded by science, no.
5. Dawkins the grandstander gets more than his fair share of the press, and this should not obscure the untold and often unknown story that there are many scientists, prestigious and obscure, who are people of deep religious faith. My favorite science-faith writer is John Polkinghorne—a particle physicist, former president of Queens' College, Cambridge, and ordained Anglican priest. Others come to mind, like Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at Harvard, or Ian Hutchinson, a plasma physicist who heads MIT's Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. I have already mentioned Bill Newsome at Stanford. Scientific "authority," whatever its cache, cuts both ways. As a university pastor for almost nine years at Stanford, it was my pleasure and privilege to meet hundreds of Christian professors, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, from every academic discipline. It does not disturb or surprise me to encounter a Richard Dawkins every once in a long while.
6. Beyond the narrow confines of the scientific community, Dawkins the atheist and people like him form a tiny minority. As the Harvard Islamicist Wilfred Cantwell Smith has observed, the overwhelming majority of intelligent peoples of all times, places, and cultures have been religious: "To be secularist in the negative sense is to be oddly parochial in both space and time, and to opt for what may be a dying culture".5 Granted, truth is not a matter of democratic vote, but this historical fact begs for an explanation beyond Dawkins's sarcastic derision of religion.
7. What about the every day voices of ordinary people as they interpret their own experiences? I am willing to bet Dawkins that the average Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian most devastated by the tsunami has not jettisoned her faith. Most people, however tragic their experiences, maintain their religious faith, they want to continue to live, and they believe that, however painful, it is better to have lived than never to have lived at all. This empirical reality also demands an explanation other than insisting that people of faith are badly befuddled idiots.
8. Is the Dawkins world view more intellectually compelling or humanly satisfying? After all, the "tsunami problem" of religious faith does not disappear just because you excoriate Christian belief; the problem remains for other faiths or atheists like Dawkins to explain and incorporate into their own world view. He admits that we should not privilege the human species above any other life form or believe that it deserves any special moral consideration.6 Many people believe that it is a short step indeed from such an atheist world view, in which physical matter is all that exists, to a depressingly nihilistic world view. We do know that the greatest crimes against humanity, Soviet and Chinese communism, killed over 100 million people in the name of atheism (with the help of scientific technologies), and that in Dawkins's world view you might consider those deaths unfortunate, despicable, socially counter productive, or whatever, but you cannot call them Wrong with a capital W.
9. The Christian world view does not turn a blind eye to suffering or candy coat it with pious cliches. Rather, our faith encourages a large measure of protest, doubt, and questioning, not to mention concrete deeds of love to address the human condition (most of which are never reported on the nightly news). The book of Job is perhaps the best example; likewise the Psalms. One irritating habit of Dawkins's is to present the weakest and most tendentious examples of Christian faith, and then proceed to destroy them (the straw man argument). Another is to insinuate that he is among the first or brightest thinkers ever to consider the place of the problem of evil in the life of faith. Christians do not embrace the irrational or claim ignorance as an ally. We do not understand faith as blind obedience or "believing what you know ain't true." Christians, in fact, find a place for something like the tsunami, believing as we do that "the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Romans 8:22).
10. Most important of all, Christians believe that God in Christ has done something about human suffering, that He has entered our suffering and in some mysterious way taken it into Himself to transform it to our good: "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and grace to help us in our time of need" (Hebrews 4:1516).
32. Comment #1545 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I understand Brian as being the only atheist here that makes any common sense but if a Woody Allen phrase can HELP destroy your faith then you need to find the proper sources that can guide you, admit the fact that no one here is smarter than the other, you must see we are using the same tactical arguments to reason one another.If you have a question regarding the bible, a contradiction or a morally objective passage then seek the answers without a blinding one view. The whole World Wide Web is here and I can differ common sense answers from zealot opinions, you should too, so search return to Christ, what is there to lose? You’re stuck in a ruck anyway. You may get a smack on the head and dragged home but it will be worth it.
It’s your choice but admit your faith and be part of the reason of the universe, delayed due to an infestation of sin but the ball will be rolling again soon.
This is all down to my faith but it makes logical common sense to me guys, unlike your crumbling evolution theory that will be challenged again and possibly thrown in the bin in a court of law if conclusive evidence does not arise in favour of a new ridiculous theory as to which you can hop the band wagon. This is how science works.
Show the best evidence to support it without could have, may have and cover any questions raised with probable answers and things may sway in your favour.
33. Comment #1548 by Phil on October 13, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Dave. All we know is that mutation scrambles genes. It dosnt rearrange them into something new. It works like this for exampleusing ... "Scientifically". you can get words such as FACE, CALL, SCENT, SALLY
You wont get however ZEBRA, DINOSAUR(injoke), or RING.
When have we ever seen a benifical mutation or a new kind of animal emerge from an old kind. We cant and if you want to use bacteria as an example remember it loses information as a means of resistance but is outclassed by its original strain and certinaly dosnt prove: nothing, bang! instead of God.
34. Comment #1549 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Brain quote: We live in fast changing world Phil, the pace of change is accelerating exponentially. More will be discovered and developed in the next 10 years than in the previous 1000. Most of these discoveries will continue to enroach on the territory traditionally occupied by religion, soon there will be hardly anything left ...Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
I agree Brian. The world is moving on but exactly the way the bible says. I know there have been many Christian related atrocities but these were from individuals with spearheading attacks (Dawkins watch your path) and served nothing to the teachings of Jesus which few have argued with.
35. Comment #1564 by Anonymous on October 13, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Re: comment 104. I totally reject all your links. I am familiar with yhe christian response. I did everything I could to keep my faith. The Christian answers do not hold up. Dont you think it is strange that wars have been started between (to use your words) people who actually study the bible?RE comment 120, ever heard of pseudogenes, transposons, gene convertion, and my personal favorite, GENE DUPLICATION as mechanisms of creating new genes? (all experimetally observed)
Re "No one can force you to go there and listen to these deluded nut cases who accually study the bible and blindly refuse science which apparently shows: nothing-Bang-everything."
Yeah, and I suppose God just happened to allways exist without a need to explain why, waved his majic wand and went POOF, everything is created! So, whats your point? Satisfy me on Micah 5:2, Jeremiahs failed prophecy and the lack of early human fossils. Hormon
1. Comment #1259 by Simmons on October 11, 2006 at 3:57 am
I agree with some of the general ideas in this review. Dawkins will not succeed in converting many theists into atheists because, as the books title suggests, God is a delusion.