Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by PlagioClase


1. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157082 by PlagioClase on April 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm

This growth in creationism does seem to be a bit of a worrying trend for some.

Especially when creationists are such liars (?)

But then, perhaps they don't agree with the ideas.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #152853 by PlagioClase on March 31, 2008 at 4:29 pm

What can be done about the awful inaccuracies in the curriculum and textbooks that still persist in kids' text books these days?

3. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #152852 by PlagioClase on March 31, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Happy Birthday Richard.

The best gift that anyone can receive is the love and forgiveness of their Creator God. So that's what I wish for you.

Remember, just because you were born in Britain does not mean you have to accept the beliefs you were taught as a kid and follow the British national religion of evolution. :-)

I really do wish you all the best.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149475 by PlagioClase on March 25, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Creationists are liars (?)

5. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148421 by PlagioClase on March 23, 2008 at 4:07 am

If there is anyone feeling depressed, defeated or like life is not worth living you may find this clip about Nic Vujicic inspiring.

I did. I just discovered it tonight.

6. Fleabytes

Comment #148369 by PlagioClase on March 22, 2008 at 6:56 pm

It is good to replace bad superstitions with nice ones.


It's good to replace superstition with the truth.

7. Fleabytes

Comment #148365 by PlagioClase on March 22, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I am just reading the April edition of Contact, which is published by the Christian Radio Missionary Fellowship.

There is an interesting article about the impact of Christian mission on PNG. In the remote west it's hart do imaging that just 40 years ago the people were killing each other on a regular basis.

Kidnap, retribution, torture, cannibalism, warfare and headhunting were common. Death and fear were part of everyday life and could arrive without warning at any time.

When the Gospel of Christ came to that area the worship of the Creator God replaced the worship of idols, Local tribes turned away from practicing witchcraft and from observing occult arts. Headhunting and cannibalism ceased almost overnight.

Contact magazine can be accessed from http://www.crmf.com/. The April issue is not up yet, but I notice that the December issue has some amazing reports too.

When I read reports like this I think that Richard and his atheist friends are being very selective with the data they use. And they seem to have done some very sloppy analysis of the data because they do not differentiate between the different worldviews.

8. Fleabytes

Comment #147767 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 8:10 am

Paula Kirby
You'd be surprised.
Do you ever pray to God?

9. Fleabytes

Comment #147752 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 7:36 am

Here is another who lived in an atheist utopia but didn't find it so attractive:
Mikhail Gorbachev admits he is a Christian

"Mr Gorbachev's surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, ..."

I hear there are a lot of Christians praying for Richard Dawkins, too.

10. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147726 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 6:51 am

AllanW
If you are interested in exploring evidence the book is worth a read. Flew was one of the most prominent atheists in the world for 60 years. His book presents the reasons why he became an atheist, and then the reasons why he abandoned the idea.

11. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147714 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 6:37 am

Enlightenme .. #147692

merely that there is a dearth of evidence for anything supernatural


I can think of two prominent ex-atheists who say it was the evidence that impacted their thinking.

1. McGrath who wrote a response to The God Delusion. He was an atheist as youth but became a Christian at university. The science had a big impact.

2. Antony Flew, the Oxford philosophy professor who became an atheist in his late teens and was one of the most prominent in the atheist movement until he was in his 80s. In his book, 'There is no a God', he says it was the astronomical and biological scientific evidence that had the biggest impact on him. It's worth a read.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #147708 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 6:28 am

Did I mention that McGrath used to be an atheist, by the way?

Yes, he said he grew up as an atheist but that the science he studied at university convinced him otherwise.

It's the opposite to Richard, who was confirmed an Anglican but who became an atheist at the age of 15, or so.

A bit like Antony Flew whose father was a Methodist minister. Flew became an atheist in his late teens, but said in his 80s that he now believes in a God. His book (There is no a God) is very useful reading. It was the new discoveries in science, especially biology and astronomy that had the biggest impact on Flew.

13. EXPELLED!

Comment #147702 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 6:20 am

I can't wait to see Richard in the film. I've heard that in it he entertains the idea that life was seeded from space--panspermia. That will be interesting to see because, if so, the creationists will say that Richard agrees that the origin of life on earth is impossible.

14. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147684 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 5:56 am

The assertion 'There is no god' is a theological statement.
And as soon as anyone tries to justify that statement they are engaged in a theological discussion.

15. EXPELLED!

Comment #147679 by PlagioClase on March 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

I wonder sort of informed critique Richard will give about the movie?
Boring?
Lying?
Deceiving?
Ignorant?
Wicked?

16. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147338 by PlagioClase on March 20, 2008 at 7:27 am

Justanotheratheist, Comment #147320

Worse, in my opinion.


Who cares? And why do you worry? According to Richard we live in a universe with nothing but 'blind, pitiless indifference'.

Anyway, Wiki says that theology is a term compounded from two Greek words theos (god) and logos (rational utterance). It has been defined as reasoned discourse about God or the gods, or more generally about religion or spirituality.

So, according to that definition, atheists are theologians too and this is a theological site. I can't imagine that atheists would claim their utterances about God are not 'rational'.

17. A Designer Universe?

Comment #147333 by PlagioClase on March 20, 2008 at 7:09 am

The Anthropic Principle tries to explain why the fundamental constants are just right to support life.

It's one of the lines of argument that persuaded ex-atheist Antony Flew that there is a God.

He goes through the argument in his book (There is a God) and the various devices that cosmologists have invented to try to get around the evidence.

It's a good read.

18. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147149 by PlagioClase on March 20, 2008 at 12:24 am

Great article here:
UK Study Finds People Who Believe in God are Happier than Agnostics or Atheists.
Moreover, people become even happier the more they pray and go to church.

19. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125726 by PlagioClase on February 11, 2008 at 11:36 pm

11 comments.

darwin day seems to have been a bit of a fizzer.

Perhaps Dawkins Day would work better.

20. Blasphemy

Comment #122723 by PlagioClase on February 5, 2008 at 9:55 pm

"Let us all just remind Muslims everywhere of what they must surely know: blasphemy is not a capital crime in any society worthy of respect."


I can see that working like magic on Osama bin Laden. He will feel so ashamed of himself.

21. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108949 by PlagioClase on January 8, 2008 at 3:06 am

This may be a bit off topic, but I just saw this on ScienceDaily:

Progeny Of Blind Cavefish Can 'Regain' Their Sight
ScienceDaily (Jan. 8, 2008) — Blind cavefish whose eyes have withered while living in complete darkness over the course of evolutionary time can be made to see again. In some cases, the offspring of mated pairs originating from distinct cave populations regain vision, researchers found. The result shows that mutations in different genes are responsible for eye loss in separate cavefish lineages that may not have been exposed to light for the last one million years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm

They regained their eyesight because all the information for fish eyes and sight was already present. It had just been disabled by a mutation (or two), much like a car can be disabled by a very small fault.

It's a similar story with beetles losing their wings. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599/

22. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108948 by PlagioClase on January 8, 2008 at 2:52 am

Goldy, comment #109817

How can anyone not want there to be a god?


It sometimes happens when people have something very bad happen to them. Darwin may have felt some of that with the death of his daughter, Annie.

It happens too when people feel alienated from God or that they don't want God to judge them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes in Infidel how she (and others in her culture) were continually terrified by the god that Islam proclaims and how when she came to Europe she decided one day not to believe in Allah anymore. Her decision was not the result of extensive research and careful consideration of all the issues and arguments. She just decided that she would not believe anymore. And I don't blame her.

I don't think it is helpful in these discussions to lump all religions together. It's like rejecting all medicine because because you are turned off by quacks. The true God who created this world, including each of us, is not the god of Islam. And what we believe about all that will not change reality.

23. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108905 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Last but not least, the fact that God corresponds so perfectly to our wishes that there is every reason to think he was invented to fulfill them, at least in fantasy; this makes religion an illusion in the Freudian sense of the term.


That's ridiculous. Richard says the same in Delusion, that he dislikes the God he's fighting against.

I think it's the atheist that is trying to invent a reality to their liking.

Bertrand Russell wanted sexual liberation: 'The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex'

Julian Huxley the same: 'The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous.'

But there is a better way.

24. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108862 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Goldy, comment #108795.

A rather emphatic no there, but why? A billion years, to use your example, is a long time.


Yes, and you would expect that a billion years would be more than enough time for it, right? That is the general impression that people have.

But, what if the changes in the microbe's genome due to variation and natural selection are in the wrong direction for microbe-to-man evolution to occur?

Tell me, if a business makes a small loss on every transaction, how many transactions will it have to make before the business makes a profit overall?

25. Blind Faiths

Comment #108794 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I agree that Islam is a huge threat to the West, and that in 40 years time major parts of the West could be under sharia law.
The West no longer knows what it stands for but Islam is absolutely clear about its commitment to Allah.
The West has lost its drive to defend itself, but Islam is committed to jihad to spread Islam.
The West no longer wants to have kids, even killing their offspring before they are born. Islam is breeding at many times the rate.
The West is aging. Islam is young.
The West is shrinking. Islam is growing.
The west does not understand religion. Islam is driven by religion.

I blame the loss of Christian worldview for the demise of the West. That worldview built the west but now it no longer knows why it exists. I've seen that some sociologists who have said the same thing.

26. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108790 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Diacanu, comment #108788

So, you believe in evolution, just not to the point where it butts up against the genesis myth.


It depends what you mean by evolution. Yes to the sort of evolution Steve referred to with microbes. Most evolutionists I have discussed this with are stunned because they don't know what creationists are actually saying. But NO to the concept that microbes change into magpies and mackeral over billions of years. The important thing is to distinguish the different processes between the different concepts, scientifically.

27. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108787 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Steve, comment #108774.

... we have seen species of complex plants and organisms evolve and change into new species within human history.


Steve, creationists agree with you here. As I said, most people do not know what creationists are actually saying. Speciation is no problem to creationists, and the creationist framework explains that well. The article 'Speedy species surprise' gives a good example.

But creationists do not agree with the first part of your sentence "But what proves it is that ...". By "it" is meant the grand scheme of evolution, that microbes turned into people by natural processes over billions of years. That extrapolation is not valid.

28. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108750 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Steve, comment #108533

I wish evolution would stop (at least for microbes).


Yes, it is a jolly nuisance when we keep getting sick.

But that raises an interesting point. I wonder if folk are aware that creationists would agree with the concept you are describing here, variation and adaptation within microbes as a result of natural selection. I've found many people are not aware of this and think this proves creationists are wrong. They think that just because microbes adapt then that proves they evolved into magnolias, monkeys and people over billions of years.

But that is an unsubstantiated assumption. Notice that microbes are still microbes. There has been only trivial changes over the supposed 3.5 billion years in this genome which replicates faster than any other. I'm sure you would know it's called 'stasis', or non-evolution.

One article that explains this important concept is here.

29. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108481 by PlagioClase on January 7, 2008 at 3:36 am

I think D'Souza has an interesting point here about Richard being a cultural Christian.

30. A War On Science

Comment #107721 by PlagioClase on January 5, 2008 at 4:39 am

Steve, Roger and epeeist. You guys seem to get very emotional and insulting about these issues. Don't you like creationists calling you 'liars, idiots, simplistic, don't understand, rubbish, stupid, ludicrous, crap.' Oh, sorry, that was not me calling you those names. That was the other way around, the way you guys describe creationists.

But I think I understand you. Creationists have a certain smell about them, which you don't like. The Bible describes it in 2 Corinthians 2:16

31. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107676 by PlagioClase on January 5, 2008 at 1:06 am

Teratornis, comment #107664

No religion I am familiar with limits itself merely to the claim that there is "a God" - they all go much farther than that, with detailed descriptions of what this God, or gods, demand that people should do and not do.


It's interesting to see Antony Flew wrestle with this question. He had never thought about it before. Ideas do not exist in isolation but they bring other ideas with them.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XQ2VuQyAeRM

So if you don't want to open the door, just say that Flew is losing his marbles and don't watch the video.

32. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107671 by PlagioClase on January 5, 2008 at 12:58 am

Epeeist, comment #107670

Loving sort of chap your god isn't he.


One characteristic of love is justice, which is why we have a police force, courts and a prison system.

Interestingly, Asimov's three laws of robotics are consistent with the events described in Genesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

(Steve, it's safe to look because it's not a creationist website!)

33. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107669 by PlagioClase on January 5, 2008 at 12:44 am

Goldy, comment #107633

This article 'Variation and natural selection versus evolution' compares the evolution and creation models. The article is here.

Roger Stanyard, comment #107667. Well, the Natural History Museum, then. I'm sure you know what museum in London I meant. Google found it OK from that description. I visited the museum in October 2000 and saw the Darwin exhibit.

34. A War On Science

Comment #107659 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Goldy, comment #107656

How do you know bacteria will not become bus drivers?


Because the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are going the wrong way--downhill, not uphill.

35. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107657 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Goldy, comment #107655

NZ, eh? My son and his wife live in NZ with their three children. And they are into feeding babies too, with a three-week-old son. We visited over Christmas.

Now, if each thing is created as is, as it were, then there can not really be any evolution as such.


This is a very popular conception of creation by evolutionists. It's still presented in the British Museum of Natural History but it is wrong. It is not the creationist view at all.

36. A War On Science

Comment #107652 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 11:14 pm

J.Robert, comment #107649

The National Academy of Sciences has released another book about evolution.


Yes, their book is very colourful and well presented.

But why does it keep putting up strawmen? How long will evolutionists keep putting up examples of natural selection and say this proves the creationists are wrong? Creationists accept natural selection. But natural selection will not change bacteria into bus drivers? See 'Natural Selection: Superpower? ... or Kryptonite!

I think this book is a political stunt.

Note the strategy in the book to curry the favour of religious people by saying that evolution is no problem for religion. (It's not for most religions, but it contradicts and undermines the biblical worldview.) They have spent a whole chapter on that. Richard has said he is disgusted with that approach and I agree with him. I think they are playing politics and being disingenuous.

37. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #107650 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm

He likened Professor Dawkins' understanding of the beauty of the world around us with that of St John of the Cross, the 16th-century mystic.


I'm surprised Richard considers this a compliment.

In some ways Richard's assault on religion is consistent with the message of the Bible. People do invent their own gods, and the Bible condemns that practice (See Exodus 20:3-5). Trouble is he has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

38. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107647 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Teratornis, comment #107579

Often it works the other way: smart people are able to (subconsciously) construct especially elaborate and convincing rationalizations for their irrational behavior and beliefs.


Yes, I've often thought that's how it works for those who worship images, follow horoscopes and deny there is a God.

Romans 1:18-32 and Ephesians 4:17-32 explain it in graphic detail. There is nothing new under the sun.

39. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107578 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Ronaldf_F, comment #107559

Don't try to explain imperfections away and just ask some Eye specialist instead how he would design a perfect eye !


The biblical worldview explains why there are imperfections in this world: they are due to the Fall--i.e. the willful rejection by the first two humans of the Creator's authority over their lives. Sound familiar?

Sorry all this is very UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN !!!


Anyway, unintelligent design (and I don't accept your assessment on that) is still design! They used to think the appendix had no function, but that was due to their ignorance.

40. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107557 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Goldy, comment #107523.

Yes, it was a creationist, Edward Blyth, who first proposed natural selection, and that before Darwin did.

But Natural Selection is Not Evolution!

Well, some people may call it evolution. But, although natural selection can change the population ratios of coloured moths, but it won't change a moth into a mother-in-law.

See 'More about moths': http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5559

41. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107516 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Goldy, comment #107506:

If I may return to the eyes, isn't it odd how those creatures that find no more need of eyes lose them?

That is a good point. One mutation could remove sight from such a creature in one go. It's easy for mutations to remove the design information for sight, and then for an environment to select for such a creature. But it is a different story for how mutations could have evolved the hardware and software needed for sight in the fist place.

42. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107509 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Steve, comment #107500:

Then you are going to have a problem describing the eyes of cephalopods (such as octopuses) which function very much like ours, but are not reversed.


That was answered in the article mentioned above which you said you won't read:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/fiberoptic

Bottom line: Squid eyes are designed for a different environment than ours.

Also, this article by an eye specialist, i.e. a real scientist who has worked in the field for over 20 years, discusses the squid eye. http://www.creationontheweb.com/retina


And the different design of the squid eye compounds the problem for evolution: How such a precision instrument could evolve by random copying mistakes once has never been explained (I know Charles and Richard have tried, but there is a lot of arm waving involved). But how could eyes evolve twice, with two different designs concepts? Actually, there are many more than two designs of eye in the animal world, so the problem for naturalism is enough to raise your eyebrows!

43. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #107483 by PlagioClase on January 4, 2008 at 3:46 pm

If you think about the design of the eye, it's actually amazing. The design is reversed for a purpose, and it functions incredibly well, you would have to agree.

See what a specialist eye doctor says: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5265

'Backward' design?: http://www.creationontheweb.com/marshall

Recently discovered fiber optic design: http://www.creationontheweb.com/fiberoptic


Vestigial organs are nowhere near as common as you would expect from evolution. http://www.creationontheweb.com/vestigial

http://www.creationontheweb.com/vestigialorgans


I apologize to those people who are not keen on reading material from a creationist source, but if you do check the articles you will find they are usually fully referenced.

44. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106966 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I can't actually think of any ...


Thanks, Steve.

Interestingly, Jesus spoke about that sort of thing: 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

45. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106955 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 6:34 pm

If you can suggest a scientifically falsifiable test for a designer, go ahead.


Forensic investigation and archeology are sciences that both have criteria for detecting intelligent design. So does the SETI project. They are not based on proof, but on analogy and plausibility. Just apply the same scientific standards to biology. See 'Is the design argument legitimate'.

How about something from you, Steve. What evidence would you accept as evidence that there could be an intelligent designer? A biological wheel? A biological motor?

Or will you hide behind the fact that it is impossible to prove that something had to be designed, that it could not have formed by chance? Atheists tend to be impervious to design arguments. No matter what evidence is presented they always claim, by faith, that something formed naturalistically, even if it can't be demonstrated at the present. It is just that we don't know how it happened.

46. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106912 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 5:09 pm

If research shows evidence that goes towards removing God's claim on our lives, then so be it.


And if biological research shows evidence of incredible design, then so be it. Antony Flew said he is no longer an atheist because he followed where the scientific evidence led. How objectively scientific is it to deny a designer because of one's prior beliefs about God?

47. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106886 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

The origin of the first life is called chemical evolution. Then there's cosmic evolution, geologic evolution, biological evolution and human evolution. The whole naturalistic worldview uses evolution to try to explain how everything made itself without God. Finally there is heat death which means that everything is meaningless in the long run anyway. Evolution is a grand, motivating, uplifting, invigorating philosophy. All designed to remove God's claim on our lives.


The Miller-Urey experiment that has been referred to is actually evidence against abiogenesis. See http://www.creationontheweb.com/urey.


It's a big issue but there is a lot of information on the origin of life here. http://www.creationontheweb.com/origin

48. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106527 by PlagioClase on January 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

I'm tired of evolutionists accusing creationists of being dishonest. That's a crass political trick of someone who is not interested in the facts but wants to impress a following.

I'm sure Richard understands the concept of scientific paradigm. He works within a paradigm and claims he is honest. It's hypocritical to accuse a creationist of lying for doing the same thing he is doing.

For example, no one knows, after 150 years of trying, how a mixture of lifeless chemicals could form itself into a living, reproducing cell. Neither has anyone ever seen it happen. But Richard still says, against the observational scientific evidence, that it did. Should we accuse him of being dishonest? Perhaps he should have a talk to ex-atheist Antony Flew, an honest atheist who now says, 'There is a God', because of the scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.