Taking an Ax to the Tree of Evolution
May 13, 2008
I woke up this morning reminded that I am only human… sunburnt, sleepy, and sore from a day’s work out in yesterday’s sun. I realize that I am only one man – but today I carry an ax. I have recently found some nasty trees growing in my own backyard. They are growing on my property… and it’s time to take action. The trees bear the fruit of evolution… literally. They are growing in the backyard of my family, my life, my church. It’s got to stop – so that’s why I’ve picked up my ax. My ax is something that is sharper than any two-edged sword… it’s the TRUTH. Will you inspect your yard? Will you find the nasty little bushes and take a whack, too? What… you think it’s not that nasty – you think you’re okay with a few of of those thorny little things… listen to what Richard Dawkins (leading evolutionist / atheist), “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Which one are you…? If you don’t pick up your ax – I’d agree… you are ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Are you ready to take a swing? Here goes…
1. Obstacles that Evolution Cannot Overcome (2 Peter 3:3ff)
a. Everything cannot come from nothing (without God) – where did matter & energy come from for the big bang and who banged it?
b. Life cannot just appear from non-life (what are the mathematical odds of a single strand of DNA forming randomly… impossible-to-1)
c. Natural selection disproves that complex organisms came from ’simple’ single-celled organisms (natural selection reduces genetic and microscopic information, it doesn’t increase it)
d. Vertebrates cannot just ‘evolve’ from invertebrates (irreducable complexity says that connected parts, like vertebrae, need each other… they are interconnected and dependent on each other)
e. How did animals evolve into self-conscious, moral, even spiritual, beings? (there are too many distinctions between animals and humans… we were created in the image of God)
2. Myths about Evolution Exposed (Ps. 111:10)
a. There is proof for evolution. False. No proof exists for evolution that a creation could not use as evidence for intelligent design. Darwinians and creationists use the same evidence / proofs to draw two distince conclusions (it’s a matter of your world-view / starting point / presuppositions). There are no missing links – that’s why it’s still a theory. The only kind of evolution available for science to view is adaptations (micro-evolution) and variety within species and kinds.
b. Science vs. Religion. False. Neither evolution nor creation is any more science or religion than the other. Darwin’s converts believe they trust in science and we in religion… but the truth is, they still trust. Each side uses the same facts, each side necessitates faith (no observation & testing – only hypothesizing). It’s not science vs. religion – this is a fair-game, level playing field. Now play fair.
c. It’s unimportant. False. This is a foundational argument. It’s a war of world-views. What you believe affects how you will behave. There are serious implications to believing Darwin over the Bible – and vice versa. The attack on Genesis 1-2 is nothing less than a Satanic strategy to undermine God’s authority from the beginning.
3. Evil Effects of Evolution (Romans 1:20ff) – Many wickedness did not necessarily begin with Darwin and evolution – but find a warm and cozy justification there!
a. Humanism …taking the glory and prerogatives of God for one’s self. This leads too quickly to a relative morality (fluid value system) – like what we see in America today. According the Scriptures, it makes room for homosexuality, abortion, feminism, chauvenism, and all types of lawlessness. It removes God’s authority (accountability – and therefore, a judgment).
b. Racism – It’s no secret that Hitler was an ardent Darwinian. He probably thought he was doing good by weeding out the international garden from handicapped, less-thans, elderly, and early-evolutionary races.
c. Atheism – A refusal to believe in God or a denial of God’s authority and power (inherent as Creator). Richard Dawkins, leading atheist, accused a majority belief in intelligent design as an “educational scandal” and further called church-style creationism “organized ignorance.”
1a) Misunderstanding of the physics behind the Big Bang. Look up references to the ea of virtual particles as a starter.
1b) Misunderstanding of Biology. Pasteur tried to prove this but was proven wrong.
1c)Misunderstanding of the information processes within genetics. Information can be increased rather nicely.
1d)Irreducible complexity, well, no examples of it have ever been found or verified.
1e) Claim from Incredulity. Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Then you seem to throw in a ‘god’ mechanism for no apparent reason.
2a) There’s a whole lot of proof for Evolution. From fossils records, genetic similarities, diversity of species locations and so, so much more. ID can only use that evidence to support itself by either claiming evidence that doesn’t actually exist (such as irreducible complexity) or introducing an unneeded mechanism (creator being). Both of which is complete opposites of the scientific method. There are also a lot of ‘missing link’ fossils found, they’re known as transitional fossils … I think you need to brush up on your research.
2b)False logic. ID/Creationism go completely opposite the scientific method, namely reaching a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it. The scientific method looks at the evidence and forms conclusions from it.
2c)The only important part of the argument is about the use of rational thought and logic, which is being undermined by people continuously trying to introduce primitive superstitions into universities and schools as ‘fact’.
3a)Assumes god exists in the first place. Also wrong since gods own passed down morality changes all the time. For example, I don’t see many farmers getting stoned for planting two different crops next to each other any more…
3b)Misunderstanding of history. Hitler used Eugenics and Social Darwinism, not the Theory of Evolution. Both Eugenics and Social Darwinism existed long before Darwin ever passed down his first peer reviewed findings. Indeed, one of the earliest and biggest proponents of social darwinism was a man called Thomas Malthus … a christian minister.
3c) Assumes god exists in the first place and what, exactly, is wrong with people have the freedom to choose what they believe, hm?
Now I wonder if this comment will actually make it through or not. I notice a lot of sites of this leaning tend to have a lot of comments ‘go missing’ a lot…
Thanks for the input! I’ll admit that I’m just a student in this area. I’d like to ask you a few questions about your comments…
1a – I don’t understand the Big Bang like you or others might (especially those who espouse this belief) – but every hypothesis I’ve heard has to do with some combination of particles (matter / anti-matter) and energy… but it never seeks to answer the cause & effect question of ‘where did that come from?’ Even Richard Dawkins says, “Nobody really know.” So he doesn’t know and assumes that no one else can know / does know???
1b – You’re right – it’s not provable and improbable that life can appear from non-life. I would have to say that it’s on those asserting the theory (evolutionists) to prove it – not creationists (like Newton, Kepler, & Pasteur).
1c – There’s no misunderstanding… (maybe a slight lack of education). Natural selection thins out genetic information (bad as well as good), it does not increase / multiply it. There would have to be some sort of multiplication to evolve from a simple organism (although science has come a long way the last 150 years to understand that Darwin’s ‘simple single-celled organism’ isn’t so simple) to transfer across specie and kind boundaries
1d – Irreducible complexity states that all the parts that are inter-connected and inter-dependent are just that… they need each other. How then do evolutionists make the jump… water-to-land, reptile-to-bird, invertebrate-to-vertebrate? This assumption would necessitate two things… tons of animals found with both gills/lungs, legs/wings, etc. But there’s not – there’s only a small handful, by comparison. For example, You’d assume that a ‘fish with legs’ would swim slower and be killed off faster than one without. For everything on earth, there is a builder. A mousetrap can’t just appear… first the wooden plank, add 1m years, then the spring, add 1m years, then the bar of death, add 1m years, then the latch, add 1m years, then the trigger, add 1m years, then the cheese… how did it survive without eating and functioning… there’s only so far you can break down interconnected parts without disabling the function. A mousetrap – there’s an example.
1e – The burden of proof lies with the ‘new kid on the block’ – your theory that excludes God. For a long time, people were okay with believing in God as Creator. You need to produce some missing links… and lots of them. Doesn’t their absence bother you?
2a – All I’m saying is that you and I use the same stuff. I could take you to the Grand Canyon, to bones and places where they were found to prove my point of view just as staunchly as you could prove yours. We would both leave affirmed in our convictions that we were right. Evolutionists have not yet found proof beyond the creationist (what creationists have been using as proof for centuries). You slightly allude to forms of ‘circular reasoning’ being used by our side… I’d agree. Far too often some right-winger will say that they believe in God and/or creation because the Bible says and then say that they know the Bible is true because of God and/or creation. Don’t assume though that just because a few don’t understand scientific, historical, and prophetic proofs of Christianity (God, creation, Bible) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist… don’t use your argument against me then against yourself!
2b – No logic needed. I’ve heard it over and over. It’s what Dawkins, Scott, Myers, & others have been saying for decades. You guys think you have a corner on science and it’s our place to stay in a pew. That’s entirely wrong. Evolutionists employ just as much faith (if not more!) in the issues of #1 (above) than IDers. We believe we know how, who why… you believe you do / do not as well. We both make a very liberal use of faith. Evolution has not and cannot be reproduced, observed, and tested… only hypothesized. Two things about the scientific method… I love it (it doesn’t hurt me or my faith at all because I realize that it does take faith to believe in any kind of Creation, Big Bang, Origin of Life, etc.) – but who set it up as the authority anyway… how did those four little words become the all-in-all?
2c – Allow me to quote Dawkins, “The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer good enough just to get on and do science. We have to…defend it from liberal attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves.” Your leadership basically says it’s time to march – rally the troops. Why? He knows that it’s a war of world-views. This is going to hit people where it counts & affect their view of God / non-God, etc. Oh, by the way… we IDers were in the universities long before Darwin was ever born (we’re not trying to ‘introduce primitive superstitions’) – and definitely not as ‘fact’ (that is, of course, we’re talking about the same kind of ‘fact’ that the theory of evolution claims… I can’t believe you can’t agree that they both require faith AND facts to have survived this long?!?
3a – God’s morality hasn’t changed… Look up the definition of morality (the morals of a culture / society will shift with time). That’s pretty witty of you to include the reference from Deuteronomy… did you know that some of those things God planned to be temporary and some of them permanent. God never changed – it was His intent all along to protect his people from certain things (hybrid, sterile plants & disease-infested pork) until technology could catch up and follow suit. I really am curious what you think of right, wrong, justice, injustice, law, lawlessness… and by what authority do you base your opinions… or is it a relative morality? (I am serious about being curious)
3b – I didn’t say that Darwinism gave birth to all of its evils.. I said that it is home to many (“Many wickedness did not necessarily begin with Darwin and evolution – but find a warm and cozy justification there!”) It doesn’t bode well with me when some nut does something and blames it on my religion – what about you? Eugenics was another tragedy… just like abortion and euthanasia – that finds solace in Darwin’s evolution. By the way, you are incorrect of your timeline… Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925) – mankind has “transgressed the law of natural selection” by allowing inferior races to survive and propogate… words of Darwin & quoted by Hitler… it wasn’t just a social Darwinism, it was full-blown evolution! When asked “Would he care to live in a society shaped by Darwinian principles?” Richard Dawkins replied, “Not at all.”
”And why not? the interviewer requested.” Dawkins: “Because the result would be fascism.” In this, Dawkins was entirely correct; and it is to his credit that he said so.
3c – God made each one with a freedom to choose whether to believe or not. It’s sad though that so many don’t see, logically, that everything around them points to a purpose (not an accident), an effect (from an ultimate Cause), a design (from the Designer). We, logically, don’t assume that anything else on earth came accidentally (not an automobile, not a watch, not a computer, not a book…) except when it comes to the most complex and magnificent of all things… nature, the human body, etc. Why is that? It’s not an accident that some reject the thought of God. Why? Ask yourself… why (or, if necessary, why not?) I think we both know why… the implications. Accountability. Consequence. Purpose.
Ever heard of Pasteur’s wager? He was confronted about his faith… He basically said, ‘Well, if you’re right, we’ll both go the ground and die. Both living full and happy lives of our own choosing. But if I’m right, then I’ll go to be with God forever and you, because of your rejection of God, will not… forever. Is that worth the bet?’
1a – Quantum theory actually has shown that particles can appear from nowhere and disappear again. This has actually been observed, which really is pretty cool when you think about. Usually these particles appear in pairs and more or less cancel each other out, but occassionally they happen to hit… The results of which are being tested quite soon by the brand new Large Hadron Collider.
1b – You seem to be trying to appeal to the Law of Biogenesis in this particular section. No such scientific law actually exists, it’s existence seems to be some sort of brainbug amongst sections of the community. Whereas the Theory of Abiogenesis has actually shown this to be possible.
1c – Yes, there is a misunderstanding on your part in regards to genetic information. When you get a genetic ‘mutation’ (to use a really bad term for it, but otherwise I’d have to go on for ages to specify the terms used) it obviously is new genetic information that the organism gains. Of course, not all mutations add information, some do decrease it. And as organisms evolve to better suit their environmental needs, those wonderful genetics come along and get more information added as systems change. A decent rundown on this can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Otherwise it’ll take too much time to explain here.
1d – Irreducible Complexity is, at this time, completely unproven with not even one examples of it being found and verified. Likewise, your example of a mousetrap does not work since a mousetrap is clearly a mechanical (not organic) device that does not contain any genetic information.
1e – There are lots of transitional fossils. I’ll even list a small number of them for you;Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera. That’s not to mention the rather complete record we have of whale evolution, including the movement of the blow-hole from it’s original nasal type affair to where it can be seen now, to the almost complete recession of the hind legs.
And, again, the burden of proof lies on those making a claim (as it always does). You don’t seem to understand how humanity has reached the level of self awareness that it has and thus claim god must have done it – that’s a classic example of an Argument from Incredulity, which is a type of debate fallacy. Indeed, much research has been done into the development of the human brain and mind, though even the basics are far too long to copy/paste to here. To start with just the morals, look into what’s known as the Social Contract or Evolutionary Morality.
2a – You can point to exactly the same materials, yes. But then you would need to completely misinterpret the information available to reach a creationist conclusion.
Evolutionists have an extreme amount of scientific evidence, as mentioned previously, to make their case. The scientific evidence for creationism is really just about non-existent … unless you’d care to try to list some?
2b – If you think that science relies on faith then you do not understand science at all. Science is quite ready to admit that there are plenty of things it does not yet know but what it does not do is introduce what is known as an unneeded mechanism to explain gaps in knowledge (which leads into the rather silly ‘god of the gaps’ logical fallacy). Science finds information/evidence/data and then makes conclusions … which is about as far removed from faith based reasoning as you can get.
2c – Science and Atheism has no leadership as such. You grant Dawkins with far more authority that he, or anyone has, actually is. While people look up to him because what he says often makes sense (and he has one of those cool british accents) it does not make him any sort of leader.
3a – Your argument is circular reasoning at best, assuming god exists and that the bible is accurate in such things. And no, there is no evidence that god had all those fun laws (such as killing disrespectful children or adulterers) as temporary measures. And even if he did, then that does nothing but show that if they were temporary that means they changed, therefore gods laws/morality changed … therefore, by definition, they’re not absolute.
As for morality, again, look up the Social Contract and the Evolutionary Nature of Morality. Quite a lot of research has been done into it and it does fit rather nicely with all available evidence.
3b – You make several logical and reasoning mistakes here:
* There is no such thing as ‘Darwinism’. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say on morality or ethics, it is nothing more than a scientific theory to explain genetic/species diversity on Earth.
* Trying to blame the Theory of Evolution for such things is as logically absurd as trying to blame Newton and the Theory of Gravity for plane crashes.
* Timeline. I never said Hitler came before Darwin. I said Eugenics and Social Darwinism existed before Darwin, which is true. Neither of those two concepts started with Hitler. And trying to base Hitler’s views on the Theory of Evolution is also absurd, it uses exactly the same false reasoning as trying to say Christianity is to blame for the KKK.
And yes, Dawkins is right. Which is why no one ever has (or hopefully ever will) attempt to set up a country based on one scientific theory; doing so attributes ethical properties/authority to something which has nothing to do with such.
3c – Basic (if somewhat badly worded) argument from design, which holds little to no logical weight and quickly falls into logical traps of it’s own and also relies heavily on bad ‘god of the gaps’ reasoning. Just to top it off, it makes a claim with no evidence to back it up and is also another argument from incredulity in the form of ‘why can’t people see it?!’.
As for your final paragraph…
This argument is known as Pascal’s Wager and might be an argument of minor worth if there were not hundreds of different religions and thousands of deities throughout human history. For this argument to even approach validity, you would have to be sure that you have selected the right deity; since if you do not choose the right deity (if one even existed at all) out of the various thousands, the result you hope for won’t be happening. After all, for example, there is no more evidence or proof for the Christian god than there is for Zeus, Wotan, Mithras, Xenu or even the fabled Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It also fails when you reason that if you decide based on ‘just in case’, any omniscient god is going to see right through your shallow belief and zap you for trying to fool him anyhow.
I think Matt already covered a lot of ground, but I’ll add a thought of my own.
In your comments you said, “It’s what Dawkins, Scott, Myers, & others have been saying for decades. You guys think you have a corner on science and it’s our place to stay in a pew.”
Who are “you guys”? You seem to be generalizing that all who accept evolutionary theory are anti-religion or anti-Christian and look down on people that are not. There are many scientists who find no conflict between evolutionary theory and their belief system.
Read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller and “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. They are both Christian biologists who accept belief in the God of the Bible and evolutionary theory, and they are not alone.
Matt –
Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about this… I’ll try to be much more brief this time in my response as not to attempt to ‘prove’ my point, or even ‘disprove’ yours – but to just raise questions…
1a – Do you really think it’s possible that what has been observed in rare forms (matter / antimatter), as you mentioned, could account for the origin of the entire universe?
1b – I’m not arguing anything… where is the ’scientific method’ that has shown life can begin from non-life. I remember decades ago, when scientists began attempting (with the elements they assumed were on earth) to re-create life (adding a little ‘lightning’ of their own… as far as I’m aware – no serious scientific journal has yet peer-published a finding contrary to my appeal that life cannot spontaneously combust from non-life.
1c – You mean to tell me that you actually believe that mutations can add genetic information… No! That information had to be there, in some form, already… and most (if not all) mutations limit (not increase) that info.
1d – Just because a mousetrap non-organic doesn’t mean that logic won’t work in this instance. It absolutely applies in that if it work with something as simple as a mousetrap (1 function with 5 parts) how could it ever work with complex single-celled virus and bacteria – much less a complicated being like animals or humans?
1e – It’s not incredulous if God Claimed to do it… I know that I assume that man is moral & spiritual – but at what point do you observe this happening? It hasn’t and doesn’t.
2a – I agree – there’s proof for evolution… just as much as there is for creation (because we use the same bones, the same digs, the same research). We interpret the facts differently because of our world-view. My argument stands – you have not produced ’scienctific-method-style’ evidence. There’s plenty of evidence for a young earth (although you wouldn’t see it that way). As for every other ‘argument’ – teleological, cosmological, and anthropological… you’d deny from the start (it’s not an assumption – you already have).
2b – I’m interest to know how you think science and faith (a Bible-based faith) disagree? Is it not possible, according to Matt, for faith and fact to both be true? Where has science ever contradicted the Bible? Why is it that all of our productive scientists from 200+ yrs. ago were all strong believers?
2c – I realize they may not be everyone’s leader – but they are, like it or not, heading up the new atheism movement and championing the evolutionary theory. That’s really a side-argument, though – you’d agree that this debate is of primary importance… especially as it affects the minds of school-aged children and the like.
3a – Would you disagree that evolution and/or atheism leads to fluid and relative morals? I am still curious your views on right, wrong, truth, error, justice, injustice, lawlessness… who/what is your authority?
3b – Man, we’ve drifted far from this one – Racism can find refuge in Evolution’s Theory. That’s how this began… just because you don’t like the term ‘darwinism’ doesn’t mean that it doesn’t get used (by darwinians). Again, I didn’t say that Darwin invented all the evils – but how does it sit with you that your ’scientific conclusions’ also have such serious moral implications. I have realized and embraced the implications of my beliefs in origins… and although you (and Dawkins) love to pimp the Old Testament God of the Bible as a child-killing hate-monger. It might be good for you to read this dangerous book (to know the context of your assumptions).
3c – Matt, I forgot to ask you (sorry for assuming) – Are you an atheist or an agnostic? In your comment, you have again assumed something about me… you have responded as if I wrote something entirely different. Please address the issues in my last comment.
There are several proofs for God – but you are unwilling to accept even the most basic tenet of logic (when it conflicts with your god) Who is your god? Easy: science acc. to Darwin & Dawkins. I believe that I could use your own arguments against God to ‘reason away’ Darwin himself… or even our beloved Dr. Dawkins’ brain!
Thanks for the correction (Pascal, not Pasteur) – I realized that as soon as I hit Submit. As to your last few sentences… Please put a stop to the ridiculous and sarcastic remarks – open your heart and act like an adult. The Flying Spaghetti Monster never claimed to create anything. Zeus or Xenu never died for anyone. No serious scientists ever did give Buddha or Mithras credit… again, please don’t put words in my mouth… I said nothing about God zapping either one of us. If you are willing, I’d love to send you a few selections from the Holy Bible to read and consider. God bless you.
AirTightNoodle -
Welcome! One big assumption that I didn’t know was even questioned… perhaps you can correct me (please keep in mind that I didn’t refer to just any belief-system in general):
I’ll let you in on my logic:
1 – ‘You guys’ are Darwinian evolutionists.
2 – Darwinian evolution contradicts the Bible (Creation account in Gen. 1-2).
3 – The Bible is God’s Word – to be believed.
4 – ‘You guys’ must not believe God.
As to Miller & Collins – I guess their belief in God (and/or evolution) is a very ‘liberal’ one… one of their making / choosing. It is definitely not the God of the Bible – unless that is they are not really serious evolutionists.
Yes, serious evolution & real Christianity cannot agree. ‘What fellowship has light with darkness? What concord has Christ with Belial? What agreement has Christ with an infadel?’ …See what I mean?
1a – The maths and physics backs it up rather nicely so … yes. It is a difficult scientific concept to comprehend but it is certainly quite possible. I suggest picking up a copy of ‘A Brief History of Time’ by Stephen Hawking for what is probably the simplest (yet still reasonable comprehensive) explanation.
1b – The Theory of Abiogenesis has had a lot of work and research put into it. It does have a fair chunk of evidence to back it up (as all scientific theories do). A decent summary of such can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
1c – Yes, mutations can add information. You can even see such in human mutations, when people are born with extra limbs for example. Again, this is what the evidence dictates and I have already linked to a quick summary of the evidence for this specific topic.
1d – Again, Irreducible Complexity is so far a completely unproven hypothesis. You make the mistake of assuming that smaller parts could not have been used for different purposes. Behe, for example, likes to use a type of bacterial flagellum as an example of IC – which has been examined and found to be false as outlined in the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
1e – It is incredulous if god claimed to do it, for to accept that claim as truth you would need to accept that a god being exists; a proposition for which there is no scientific evidence. Man is moral and the development of those has been rather well researched in not only human kind but also several species of animals, who have displayed altruistic acts within their own kind (and sometimes to other species). Primates often display such acts, as do certain types of Parrots and dolphins. Somewhat odd, if your case is accepted, that animals that barely have any concept of ’self’ let alone ‘god’ turn out to be altruistic and moral.
2a – Scientific evidence for evolution? You haven’t done much research into the matter, have you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
There you have a brief rundown of just some of it, all peer reviewed and verified.
Now where is some of the peer reviewed and verified scientific evidence for young earth creationism?
2b – Science conflicts with the Bible on many fronts indeed. Such as the entire origins of the various species, global flood, exodus from egypt and so on.
They also are also conflicting when it comes to how to actually come to a conclusion and the way they work. Faith/Religion holds up a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it (which is logically dishonest, to be blunt) while science looks at the evidence and forms conclusions from it.
Quite a few scientists, such as Miller, have found a way to live with both and that’s fine – those scientists, however, are not Young Earth Creationists.
2c – I’d agree that this debate is important to the extent of:
* Teaching children HOW to think, not what to think. Science does this, religious dogma … not so much.
* Science being kept as science and not eroded with silliness such as Intelligent Design.
* Religious tales being kept to churches and the home. They have no place, except possibly as part of a literature class, in a secular education system.
3a – You assume there is some sort of moral authority for Atheists; there is not one as you seem to be thinking of it. Human morality has changed throughout history, for example. We used to think slavery was great, that corporal punishment was just fine and so on. Of course, now we realise that neither are good at all and thrown them on the ol’ garbage heap.
Research shows that morals are pretty much psychological in nature, hardwired into our heads through a combination of social interaction, social contracts and evolutionary processes.
3b – You’re attempting to blame racism and the acts of Hitler on the Theory of Evolution, which is historically inaccurate and logically absurd. Scientific Theories, by definition, have no moral viewpoint or stance – the only even remotely related field (and this is a stretch) is philosophy. You may as well be trying to blame Hitler’s and Stalin’s actions on their moustaches or all the falling injuries and deaths through history on the Theory of Gravity. Or all the deaths from illness on the Theory of Germs.
And I have read the Bible, from cover to cover, on more than one occasion.
3c – I am an Atheist. And as far as I can see, I did address your last comment as much as it warranted – you attempted a rather poor argument from design.
Who is your god? Easy: science acc. to Darwin & Dawkins.
That is a rather silly argument to make. No one claims science is infallible or 100% accurate; which is actually one of the strengths of science – it’s always prepared to admit when it is wrong when new evidence comes to light. Science is merely a tool, just the best one humankind has found so far to explain the Universe.
I believe that I could use your own arguments against God to ‘reason away’ Darwin himself… or even our beloved Dr. Dawkins’ brain!
Then kindly attempt to do so.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster never claimed to create anything.
The FSM church would disagree with that. We will all be touched by his noodly appendage.
Zeus or Xenu never died for anyone.
That would be because neither actually existed except as concepts.
No serious scientists ever did give Buddha or Mithras credit…
Really? I guess all the Archaeologists are out of a job now, then. Buddhism is a rather popular faith, while Mithraism was THE big thing a handful of centuries BC.
All of which is a side issue. I claimed there is no more proof for the above deities than there is for an abrahamic deity/creator being and I stand by that statement.
“Darwinian evolution contradicts the Bible (Creation account in Gen. 1-2).”
No, evolution contradicts a literal reading of the creation account. This doesn’t mean it contradicts the truths of the bible.
I suggest reading Collins and Miller yourself to judge if they have a “liberal” view of their religion or not. I do think you’ll find, however, that their beliefs are not liberal in the least, especially Collins.
Matt -
Sorry to say, I predict this to be my last word in our discussion. Feel free to post yours. I regret that I cannot convince you that I believe in science and the scientific method – but yield every belief in science to my belief in a superior authority – God. He is, to me, both logical and beyond logic. He is easy to view according to fact and faith. As far as I can see, you and I could argue each of our points addendum to infinity and never convince each other (or anyone else for that matter) of the other’s point… I am no more convinced since this conversation (only that I am sure that I am not and never wish to be an atheist – please don’t take offense).
Much of our problem stems from the different starting points of creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
For Bible-believing Christians, God’s Word is our starting point: our presupposed foundation through which we interpret and balance fallen man’s ideas, including those derived scientifically. Although some may consider this a foolish faith, everyone has such faith in something. But which is foolish: faith in the unmovable Word of the omniscient creator God or faith in man’s fallible, changing ideas?
I appreciate your academic (but not so much your adolescent sarcasm) – it’s been a pleasure. I pray for God to continue to bless you and to reveal to you His love. Perhaps you would not agree, I have been to your blog and read several articles (to better understand you) – could you please read the Bible passage, Romans 1:20-25.
I’d like to assume that you have done things in your life to defy logic (falling in love / bungee-jumping…), but perhaps not. Why not consider taking the biggest risk of all… faith?
AirTightNoodle -
Sorry – forgot to mention that I am a literalist. Genesis isn’t a fairy-tale story book just for kids in Sunday School – its God’s story of how things began, how things came to be. It makes perfect sense (add faith, of course).
Although Collins & Miller might be conservative and to the right of where you stand… they are ‘liberal’ and left from me & my position because: a- I am a literal interpretationist; b- They have tried to sqeeze in new ’science’ into a working theology.
Hope you read my last blog to Matt & let me know what you think.
Pastornix, you make a lot of assumptions. People who read the creation account non-literally don’t necessarily treat it like a fairy-tale. It is still treated as true–it just isn’t treated as a scientific description of how the earth came to exist.
Furthermore, I don’t think you have any understanding of how conservative or liberal I am, so please refrain from making comments such as “Collins and Miller may be conservative and to the right of where you stand…”
You assume they (and myself) are liberal because of your own viewpoints. They may very well be more liberal than you–at least on this one point. There is no way for you to know that, however, unless you read and investigate their works and others like them for yourself. Again, you assume they have “squeezed” science into their theology…and you’ve never even read their works.
I stand by my last comment. Read them or not; the choice is yours. I think it would behoove you to do so, because even if you do not agree with their thoughts, at least at that point you will be better educated when arguing against viewpoints such as theirs, rather than making false generalizations.
ATN -
I’m curious, how can the creation account (or Bible, for that matter) be taken as true – but not literal… the Bible isn’t just a story book or a text book… it claims to be much more. It is either a deceptive lie, a far-fetched lunacy, or it is what it claims to be… TRUTH.
By the way, I do know a little about where you stand (I’ve read your blog) and therefore, I can say that you, Collins, and Miller are liberal (after all, it’s a fairly relative term considering a person’s self-awareness and understand of the issues on ‘either side’ of himself). But frankly, I’ve read authors like them – just tired of hearing the same old reasons why a ‘new’ science is better than (needs to be fit into) the ‘old’ doctrine.
I continue to stand on an unchanging authority – one not based on the ‘newest’ technological & scientific breakthrough (which often changes, morphs, even contradicts itself given time)…
my rock is just that – a solid foundation.
Give it a shot, it’s awesome!