Intelligent Design: Religion or Science
I returned from San Francisco on Sunday in order to attend the debate on Intelligent Design at the Rolling Hills Covenant Church in Palos Verdes. The standing room only crowd of perhaps 2500 people was treated to a riveting debate between two ID proponents and two ID opponents. On the ID side were Paul Nelson of the University of Chicago and John Mark Reynolds, Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. The ID detractors were Craig Nelson and James Hofmann, Chair of the Liberal Studies Department, both at CSU Fullerton. The moderator was Craig Hazen, Director of the Christian Apologetics program at Biola.
Paul Nelson began by restating the question. He asked: If the evidence showed that life was designed, would that be a religious or a scientific truth? The better question: Is it true or not?
Craig Nelson made the distinction between ID proponents who believe that God intervenes, for example in the creation of species, and those who believe that God uses the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. He is more comfortable with the latter.
Jim Hofmann claimed that ID could address the question of why creation occurred but not how or when; these he reserved for evolutionary science.
Paul Nelson responded that one can infer design, for example at Stonehenge, without knowing the how and when.
John Mark Reynolds argued that if one can agree that a sublime Mozart concerto was designed, as we all do, then who can doubt that an infinitely more complex and sublime micro-molecular machine was also designed. He noted that faith is not where reason ends.
Jim Hofmann said that scientists like Milton Saier at UCSD are beginning to look at how irreducibly complex (Michael Behe’s term) molecular machines might be created. He also pointed to the oddities of nature as examples of ungodly designs. The proto-example is the Panda’s nearly useless thumb made famous by Steven Jay Gould.
Paul Nelson related the time he confronted Gould with the evidence that the Panda’s thumb is in fact ideally suited to its function.
Craig Nelson claimed that origin-of-life researchers have shown that energy flow through a large collection of interacting particles can lead to emergent novelty. Thus life could be the ultimate emergent system.
John Mark Reynolds commented that clever people can write computer programs that produce surprising outcomes. See fractals. So what?
Jim Hofmann reiterated the need for science to explain the how and when of nature and he quoted the official dogma of the National Academy of Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.” Is that a statement of faith?
Warren Straley, the fellow sitting next to me, commented that he didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist, or a neo-Darwinist, I added.
Finally, Jim Hofmann reached for the evolutionary scientist’s silver bullet. He stated that questions of design are too important to be left to the scientists, those humble plodders who may only look at the how and when.
I enjoyed the debate with my good friends John and Rosie, Fred and Carmen, and we all agreed that the ID side won the debate hands down.
posted by Bill Lama at
10:29 PM
44 Comments:
Th Flat Earth people have found a new nonsense to debate. And as we can't fly into space and take a photo of evolution, they're onto a winner.
For now.
Yeah, debates at Rolling Hills Covenant are really the best tool to educate the public about this complex issue. The idea of teaching supernatural concepts in the classroom is very disturbing. The fact that the debate took place in a Christian church is even more telling....the ID people say they're just being "scientific" and that all ideas have merit (postmodernism at it's best!). What they don't tell people is that they want to fundamentally change science that is keeping with their own religious view. Scary stuff indeed, and I'm surprised that this blogger (who is a scientist) believes this baloney.
It's amazing how quickly the athiests found me. Simon from London (no less) writes on his own blog: "I am not only the Blasphemer, I am also the Prophet of Atheism."
He also writes about Antix, whose grandmother has just died at the age of 93:
"And now here I am. An atheist and my grandmother just died. So how do I feel? Sad, of course-- we were pretty close. But at the same time... inspired I guess is the best word I can think of. Memories remain and that's a pretty powerful thing. I know now she's in a state of 'existance' so to speak... no pain and suffering. No regret. No unanswered questions... Nothingness."
Athiests are so very sad.
Anonymous has no idea what "the ID people say." What is really scary are the lies ("fundamentally change science") that people like anony tell.
You know you're really getting to Bill when all he can think of when people raise issues with ID is to simply call them Atheists! You know he's on the fringe when he implies that those who actually believe in science and "evolution" are all atheists, not one Christian or Jew or Muslim among them. And actually, I do know a bit about ID. And it's stated goal is a paradigm shift from methodological naturalism to "methodological" supernaturalism. That is the whole point. People like Bill are driven insane when real scientists contradict their world-view, on in which ghosts and astrology and angels and demons are phenomena that should have equal weight with other subjects in the science classroom. Of course he will object to that sentence, taking issue with the idea that he believes in "ghosts", although I'm sure he believes in other supernatural phenomena peculiar to fundmentalist Christianity. These are not lies, although people at the Discovery Institute like to distort the debate so much that even smart people like Bill Lama get sucked in. And the fact that Bill thinks that life is pointless without believing in an afterlife is sad.
Bill
I have to agree with the Anonymous writer, and I think you really give away your position when you say "Atheists are so very sad".
I am not one myself, but there is no evidence that atheists are any sadder than anyone else. For example, there is no evidence of higher incidence of depression or suicide among them. I know some very happy atheists and some very miserable Christians.
So what do you really mean? Do you mean they make YOU sad in the same way that radical islamic suicide bombers, Catholic priest child-molesters, or tele-evangelists who make fortunes on the backs of their audiences make ME sad? There are hundreds of millions of atheists in the world - do they all make you sad? If so, then I think the problem is yours and not the atheists'.
What I really think you mean is that they represent a grouping you dislike because their belief system is different from yours, although you don't quite express it that way. Instead, you call them "sad". It would be interesting to know if this is also your attitude to other groups such as Buddhists or Hindus (not known for their sadness either).
In any case you use the word "atheist" as a term of abuse, although you can't spell it correctly.
Incidentally, I have nothing against ID. It's the latest way the Christian right have found to try to sell religion, and it's better than selling indulgences or threatening hell-fire. Just please don't call it science.
Tex
"Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the physical universe by asking questions in a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer is testable by looking at physical evidence and by allowing other people to repeat and replicate one's test, then it is not science. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. Intelligent design offers no way to investigate design scientifically. Intelligent design explains complicated phenomena of the natural world by involving a designer. This way of thinking says things behave the way they do because God makes them behave that way. This treads not into science but into the realm of faith. A prominent physicist, W. Pauli, used to say about such a theory "It is not even wrong". There is no testable hypothesis or prediction for Intelligent Design."
Kind of like ESP and UFOs.
Isn't it funny that one of the most famous Athiests of all time, Sigmund Freud made statements that Athiests are indeed sad because if they are right then there is nothing to look forward to, and if they are wrong, they will be on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to "treasures from God."
He often also said he was sad often because he was constantly "mad at God" for not existing. :)
Funny how they think it absurd to think like Einstein who in his later years said that "there must be a God because of all the order in the Universe, while to me it is absurd to think that a cell that had never split before all of the sudden decided to split and become a fish, that eventually grew legs and became a land animal, who eventually became a monkey who eventually became a human.
Seems like they have a lot of faith in the "church of randomness", while others have a lot of faith in the "church of order." Which seems more scientific? Scientific maniulipation of matter, or random chance? A Master Scientist that creates, or a pair of test tubes that just happen to merge?
Some scientists are too afraid of ridicule to admit that there might be a God. They are too much into "flatery of man" than thinking outside the box enought to be truely open minded.
FAR.
"Athiests are indeed sad because if they are right then there is nothing to look forward to, and if they are wrong, they will be on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to "treasures from God." "
This is the fallacy of those who would castigate others for not believing in god. Somehow, god, if he exists, only rewards those who believe in him. Your actions on earth, in this thinking, do not matter. So if you're Jeffrey Dahmer and you believe you get a Golden Ticket, but if you're an atheist social worker in the slums you've got a meeting with Old Scratch. Who would want to believe in a deity who thought that little of his creation? As for the Einstein quote, he certainly believed in God, but not in the conception that you would normally think. He was a pantheist who did not believe god to be supernatural, transcendent person of traditional religious teaching. It's fine to be open minded (and all scientists are), but when we try to understand nature, we need to assume natural explanations for all phenomena that is testable and repeatable over time by multiple observers. Intelligent design does not fit this bill, no matter how much you disagree with atheism.
Anon said: "Somehow, god, if he exists, only rewards those who believe in him. Your actions on earth, in this thinking, do not matter."
I don't think that only those who believe in God will be the only ones who will receive rewards. What about those in China who have never heard the "word" will God forsake them? I don't think so either.
But, here is the deal...."People who are humble and don't "trush only in the arm of flesh" and believe that they are not the "brightest bulb in the Universe" and that there just maybe someone who is, will receive the real rewards as this earth is a place to test peoples souls on their ablility to discern truth when it is presented because they are "open" enough to the idea that they are not the ultimate authority on how they got here.
FAR.
P.S.
Evolution also does not fit "testable and repeatable over time by multiple observers."
Show me one observer who has made and tested a "fish becoming a land animal" and I will show you a fake test.
FAR.
If you have a truely open mind, ponder this.....
Suppose the Scientific Law that says, "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", was true.
That it was true for all kinds of matter, Regular Matter and for something called "Spirit Matter" and that one such Spirit Matter over eons of time became the Ultimate Scientist who could "manipulate regular matter" and by talking elements began creating worlds and universes trillions of years ago.
Next, suppose this Universe began by the following: A Black Hole in another Universe absorbed sufficient matter until critical mass was reached that caused the other side of the black hole to have a big bang, and thus creating our Universe.
Next, this earth was organized from other planets about 10,000 years ago, to make it inhabitable by humans. Naturally there would be fossils that were present from the other planets that would have been present and may have even evolved from seperate base species, but not man. He would save this creation to be made in his likeness.
What if God in his Ultimate Scientist role, made the base species including man similar to the way a super smart scientist would perhaps a few hundred years from now, by building the DNA in such a way that life would be created in a test tube or some other lab.
Is this even possible? Or can you just dismiss it because you can not possibly test it? Or it is too over the top and too outside the box thinking?
I am not saying this is what I believe, but I just let my mind wander one day and begain thinking that if the Natural law that says Matter can not be created from nothing is true, then that should apply to the matter in this Universe as well and the Big Bang did not come from "nothing", this Universe msut have come from another Universe, and if it it did, then how could that be done?
Or in other words, I thought "what if?"
I look for theories that bring together conflicts. And I believe that Evloution and Creation of even "Matter out of Nothing", let alone "Intelligent Design", conflict with each other. But not in my scenerio.
FAR.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Let me add one more thing.
DNA is the key to answering the question of the "Invisible Hand of God."
DNA contains billions of coded information. So much so that the "Infinite Monkeys Therom" says It is too much information for it to be true that it can happen by random chance
In other words, when the odds of random chance become so great that they become insignificant, you can drop that part of the equation.
Which is to say, the chance that the DNA of even an aminal, let alone a human, could be coded by chance is so far fetched it points to the fact that it must be labeled as impossible.
The mere presence of the uncertainty principle should tell us that we may never be able to accurately test some theories.
FAR.
FAR,
Uh, yeah.
Thanks
What does that response mean?
Too far fetched, too outside the box, or something to ponder?
Again not saying it must be true, but I like to think about the beginning of the Universe everytime I read stuff by Stephen Hawkings, who recently said that God must be the "watchmaker who started the big bang."
FAR.
I should also mention another good book on the beginning of the Universe, called "Achilles in the Quantum Universe...The definitive history of infinity." By Richard Morris.
That is where I first read of Scientists who believe that there may be an infinite number of universes.
FAR.
Okay FAR...I'll never convince you but here goes...
Earth as a test: Ask any 4 yeard old suffering from terminal cancer, and see if he thinks life is a "test"....if he says no, then ask if he thinks he's the ultimate authority on the matter.
Fish becoming a land animal: This is a gross misrepresentation of science. You know as well as I that these changes occur over millenia. Anyways, here's your transitional animal
http://tinyurl.com/qxbe3
Spirit Matter: Again, you're wildly speculating and have absolutely no evidence for what you're saying. There are too many "supposes" in your little theory. And you obviously don't understand that energy and matter are interchangeable. Just because we don't understand everything doesn't mean we have to come up with bizarre theories that contradict the basic laws of nature. You're looking at a mystery, and assume "intelligent design". Interesting idea, but not science.
"Infinite Monkeys"- Another straw man argument you probably picked up from one of those ID sites. This is pseudomathematics spread by non-scientists who are deliberately distorting science.
DNA: Another straw man. DNA coding did not happen "by chance" but through natural selection. Why the ID people continue with this fallacy is beyond me.
Uncertainty: Amateurish use of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which only involves the measurement of very small particles. It does not mean that all of science is uncertain!
Look, it's obvious that you're grappling with some very complex issues, but you seem to want to interject the possibility of the supernatural that is compatible with science. Unfortunately, some of the science is way beyond what most people can understand. It is this problem that intelligent design people exploit. Like Stephen Hawking, many scientists believe in god, although I suspect their concept is a little different than the ordinary. For instance, Einstein believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, who believed that god is nature, and is a force that must obey natural laws. Whatever you want to believe is fine, but what many on the religious right want to do is to confuse the debate enough that supernatural speculation becomes part of the scientific debate. All scientists work from the assumption that nature can be explained. They don't pretend to have all of the answers. It is this way of thinking that is our most precious gift.
Anon,
I am always up for more information in intelligent discourse. I am not trying to convince you, and I am not above being convinced. I continue to learn and I am an independent thinkier.
For example, I too believe similar to Einstein that God must follow Universal laws of Science and there is no "hocus pocus."
Ever read "Words in Collision?" This book is one of my favorites because it also has strong opinions on both sides.
Velikovsky presents a lot of "what if's" that could explain the "miracles" in Exodus as natural acts that could have been orchastrated by God, but he does not suggest such if my memory serves me. There are "experts" on both sides of his presentations.
Ever notice that any idea that is hotly contested will have "experts" on both sides? So, what are we to believe if not trying to resolve the matter with our own set of worldview filters.
Like everyone you and I conclude facts based upon assumptions. We usually accept the intutive as conclusive.
Let me give you an example:
Four paperback volumes of Sherlock Holmes are standing upon the shelf in sequential order. Each volume is 2-inches thick.
A bookworm in a straight line eats his way from page one of Volume 1 to the last page of Volume IV. How many inches of Sherlock Holmes mysteries did the bookworm eat?
FAR.
FAR,
Sorry dude, but you're getting a little weird here. Veliokovsky's ideas contradict everything we know about astronomy, and get this through your head...he's not an expert!!! He was a psychiatrist, for crying out loud! If you want to find some weird, contorted way in which Moses parted the Red Sea using some natural explanation, fine....but don't pretend that it proves the literal truth of the Bible!
I'm not saying "he" was an expert, just that many of his supporters are.
FAR.
P.S.
I did not say that his ideas "prove" anything, just that it is interesting.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I am just putting out ideas to spark some orginal thinking and trying to see if I get any..."ummmm interesting" replys.
We all color our world with expectations. We tend to accept as credible any evidence that supports our beliefs. We also give little credence to evidence or ideas that contradict or challenges what we believe.
So with that in mind, please don't be condesending, patronizing or insulting. I am not trying to be.
Answer the quiz and you will be pleasantly suprized by my comment afterwards. It is a good learning excercise.
FAR.
Notice I said "could" not "does explain"
FAR.
I learn a lot from these conversations. I hope you don't think that I have nothing to offer that you might learn from?
I only have a 4 year college degree, (BSIT), so my knowledge is not that of a MS or PHD, and I only have an IQ of 125, but I do think that I can think critically and with an open mind.
FAR.
P.S.
I went to the website on the Tiktaalik and it said "Paleontologists suggest that it was an intermediate form..."
My question is because they "suggest" what it "might" have been, does that exclude the possiblility that it was a species in and of itself and need not be a transitional form?
Are there some assumptions here?
I love information that challenges my beliefs, so I really do thank you for the info. The more informed I am the better I can continually challenge my beliefs. I have grown by changing my beliefs as I challenge "why" I believe the way I do.
I am grateful for all of the different denominations that exist. I learn from Catholics, Protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Islamis's, etc.
I want to know the truth, and that only happens if I assume that I don't know all there is to know and continually challenge what I believe by asking "why" I believe what I believe.
Shouldn't we all be that way?
FAR.
"He stated that questions of design are too important to be left to the scientists" EXACTLY! KEEP IT OUT OF THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM!
Anon said: "And the fact that Bill thinks that life is pointless without believing in an afterlife is sad."
No, what is sad is the fact that the scientific community thinks they can explain how life started.
Birth is just a phase we pass through.
Our spirit, (life force), exists before our physical bodies are born, and our spirit exists after our body dies. But since I can't prove that some will say "it CAN'T BE TRUE!" No, it just means it can't be PROVEN!
Just suppose for a moment that the following was true:
We are in essence two people, first a spirit person, and second a physical person, and life begins when the spirit enters the body and life ends when the spirit leaves the body.
Ask a scientist when life begins and when it ends and you will get a mirid of answers. You see, a "life force" is not provable by scientific means, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! That's why it is called faith.
Now there is other proof as far as "eye witnesses" go, but then some people will completely dismiss them because the possibility of spirits doesn't fit "their worldview" because eye witnesses are not part of the "proof process."
FAR.
It's fine to believe in spirits. Many scientists do. These are faith issues. You can believe whatever you want, but the point is, don't teach it as a scientific concept. And as to whether the scientific community has proven how life started, I don't think any of them stated that they know definitively how it started. This is a red herring. No one is sayin "don't believe in spirits". They're just saying, don't teach that idea as if it is scientific.
Hmmmmm...
Anon said: "They're just saying, don't teach that idea as if it is scientific."
Here is my problem with the above. Are you saying that when it comes to how life started, Scientists should have their say, and that should be the only method that we teach in school, or should the Scientists give equal time to the idea that the "Religious Studies Department" also has an explanation of how life started?
I have no problem in saying that Science teaches the organic history of the world from a "Scientific" point of view using many assumptions since we can only surmise that certian species may have been transitional, while Religion teaches another "theory" on how life began with a different set of assumptions, such as an assumption that there is a God and he may have designed the orgainc history of the world.
What is wrong with not implying that there is only one way that life could have started, regardless of which "Department" each is taught?
FAR.
FAR,
The reason is that there are literally a thousand different religious "theories" as to how life started. To teach them all would be impossible, and it is precisely for that reason that is should not be taught in a science classroom. There is nothing wrong in implying these ideas, or actually teaching them, in a theology/philosophy class. That is where it belongs.
I don't think we disagree with where it should be taught.
I think what has me and most ID people upset is that the "Science/Darwin" proponents won't agree to say in the Science Class that Evolution has competing theories that are taught in Religion/Philosophy class. They teach it like there is no possible other theory in existance, period.
Is that asking too much for Evolution people to at least acknowledge that there are other theories? I think the Philoosophy class would be willing to do the same.
FAR.
P.S.
As far as a "thousand" different theories, I think the basic Creationist theories are very few, with maybe a few dozen different minor offshoots.
With the most basic theory being that God created the heavens and the earth, along with time.
The offshoots are did he do it by causing the Big Bang, or some other method?
FAR.
No, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a teacher to make a short statement as to the question of are ultimate origins, but that those ideas would not be discussed in the biology classroom.My biology teacher did this, as a matter of fact. Also surprising was that he was a creationist, and he admitted it! This is all very reasonable, but you're making a different point. What you and the ID people want to do is to cast evolution as somehow suspect scientifically, that it is "unproven", and that there is debate among scientists as to it's validity to explain differentiation of the species. Evolution is as proven as any theory, and there is no legitmate debate in the scientific community as to its validity. That is the real issue here, that by interjecting a fringe belief (at least in the scientific world) into the 9th grade biology classroom, and using the postmodern (and secular) view that all "theories" are valid, we actually confuse our children and drag down our scientific preeminence in the world. THe ID people want to ruin science just to make a cultural point, and our country and our children's ability to learn what true science is will be diminished if they succeed. So if you would demand that a teacher say that "evolution is just another theory" I would say you're just dead wrong. If you would want them to say "There are many religious and philosophical ideas as to our ultimate origins. We will not be teaching that in this class. Those bigger questions can be addressed next period during your religious studies class" , I think that would be reasonable.
Also, you said there are only a few creation stories? Pick up some Joseph Campbell sometime. Which god would want to teach the students about? How would you decide? Which creation stories would pick? Would you really be talking about the Big Bang in a biology class, where evolution is taught? What scientific studies ( not books from the '70s by wacko psychiatrists pretending to be astronomers) looking at the divine agency behind the Big Bang would you have the students read? Do you see the real problems here?
Anon,
said: "There are many religious and philosophical ideas as to our ultimate origins. We will not be teaching that in this class. Those bigger questions can be addressed next period during your religious studies class."
I can support that. I would add however that I don't feel that "all" of the ideas of Evolution are "proven." I think much of it is true and factual, but I think there are some points that depend upon assumptions and are not fact or proven.
I believe that there is "natural selection." But I don't think there is a way to "prove" in a lab, that DNA can be coded by natural selection. I also don't think that some of the "transitional" forms can be "proven" to be "transitional."
What if they just were another species? Aren't we just making assumptions when we try to say..."This looks like a transitional form", and it fits the theory, so therefore until something comes up to show us it is not a transitional form, we will "assume" it is.
Remember Science for a long time thought the Sun revolved around the earth, and science thought for a long time that Neutonian Physics was it, and who knows Science may yet find a uninfication theory that somewhat disproves much of what we thought we knew to date.
The same can be said of some of ideas in Evolution. Again, I think some of it is true.
Scientific Truth cannot disagree with Religious Truth. Truth is Truth, Facts are Facts, and any Religious Theory must adhere to Science when all is said and done. And vice versa!
Again I believe that God works using Laws of Physics. Perhaps he knows a Unification Theory or even Physics beyond our wildest imagination, but he still must work with Laws, he is a being that demands that Laws be observed.
The Ten Commandments and the Laws of Moses are given to us to let us know that he demands that Laws be followed. Why would it not make sense that he should also follow Laws....Laws of Physics, etc.
Just because people of two thousand years ago thought he did magic, (miracles), a flashlight back then would have seemed like magic also, but we know it isn't.
FAR.
Anon,
Said: "Also, you said there are only a few creation stories? Pick up some Joseph Campbell sometime."
Campbell was on to something when he thought that all "myths/religions" are interrelated or come from the same source.
Ever notice that the idea of re-incarnation could be just another misrepresentation of the doctrine of resurection.
If you believe that all religions and myths come from the first religion, the one that Adam and Eve knew, the God of Abraham religion, (Jews/Christians/Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham), then Campbell makes sense.
Also, Velikovsky was wrong on many things, but he got scientists to stop thinking that the history of the world was stable and had no Cataclyasms and only after his death did they really start to realize that some of what he said should be looked at as far as that one aspect goes.
FAR.
FAR,
You're free to believe anything you want. Evolution may not be perfect, but it's the best scientific explanation we have to explain our biology. You may disagree with it, or see areas that are nor perfect, but it fits what we know. We may learn more, and find problems with it. In terms of the 10 commandments and the Law of Moses, those only apply to you if you're Jewish. I'm assuming you're Christian. Look up the Great Commandment.
Anon,
Said: " those only apply to you if you're Jewish"
There are many Christians who believe the 10 Commandments apply to Christians.
Jesus quoted Old Testament scripture often and said he was not here to do away with the old laws.
There is a strong argument that the only Old Testament practices that were done away with were "Ordinacnes and Tradations" that were no longer appliciable. For instance the "Law of Sacrifice" was to remind the Jews that Christ was to come. Obviously that "Ordinance" was replaced with the Sacrament since he was "here."
More could be said, but as you say, we are free to believe what we believe and that is why there are so many different Christian denominations because you cannot put a Christian into a neat box. There are all kinds of disagreements amoung Christain sects as to what was taught and each has their points as to why they are correct.
FAR.
One added point.
Many don't think of it this way, but the Jews were the origional Christians. The Jews were taught that the "Messiah/Savior" was going to come twice. Once to die for their sins in the untimate sacrifice, and then again to rule the earth. God knew that after all the suffering they would go through that they would be more interested in the Time that he would come to be their king, so God instituted the Ordinance of the Sacrifice, so by having a ritual it would help remind them of the time he would come to be Sacrificed. But, alas, they still think he has yet to come and when he comes again, they will think it will be the first time and he will tell them it is the second visit.
So, again, the Jews are the origional Christians in reality, but they just don't know it yet.
FAR.
I think many Jewish people would take issue with your assertion that they are actually Christians and just don't know it....if you were smart, you would keep such insulting ideas to yourself, or else you would be taken for a fool....
Michael Medvel had a Jewwish Scholar on his radio show who pointed out what I just asserted, and nobody was offended or insulted.
To the contrary, they both thought the distinction was interesting.
They are still waiting for the Messiah and we are waiting for the second comming of the Messiah.
The Jews as the origional Christians was tounge in cheek.
Some people are sensitive to everything, but we can't go through life worring about those too weak to enjoy a littly levity.
FAR.
Finally the debate has died down after 40 comments, mostly from FAR and Anon. (I wish you would be brave enough to give yourself a name, Anon.) The interchange was spirited and interesting. Congratulations to you both.
However, I must object to some of the statements made by Anon, since they are false, and I suspect he knows that. Here are a few.
Anon: All he (Bill) can think of when people raise issues with ID is to simply call them Atheists!
Fact: Simon called himself an athiest on his own blog: "I am not only the Blasphemer, I am also the Prophet of Atheism."
Anon: He (Bill) implies that those who actually believe in science and "evolution" are all atheists.
Fact: I said no such thing. In fact I know just the opposite, that most scientists (at least in America) believe in God. The exceptions are the elite biologists, most are athiests.
Anon: Bill thinks that life is pointless without believing in an afterlife.
Fact: I said that athiests are sad. I said nothing at all about the point of their lives. In fact some athiests have made great contributions to science, hardly pointless.
Anon: Evolution is as proven as any theory, and there is no legitmate debate in the scientific community as to its validity.
Fact: That is just absurd on both points. Evolution producing adaptation is "proven" the rest is speculation. It can't compare to the theories of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. And there are plenty of reputable scientists who debate evolution.
Anon: The ID people want to ruin science just to make a cultural point, and our country and our children's ability to learn what true science is will be diminished if they succeed.
Fact: the "ID people" want to know the truth and they study the origins of the universe and of life wherever the evidence takes them. And children will learn about science if they are told the truth.
Anon says he is not an athiest.... but I think he is also sad.
Anon in one of his responses to me said:
"And you obviously don't understand that energy and matter are interchangeable."
I always thought that Matter and Engery were NOT interchangable.
This is what I have read:
-----------------------------------
Matter and energy are not interchangeable. The releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the "rapid- huge" increasing of volume of ordinary matter. i.e. in a nuclear reaction the missing matter will be converted to space matter.
Increasing of Volume = Mass disappeared / Density of space matter (V=M/D). Our detectable matter or "known matter" is 10% of the total matter of the Universe. The 90% of the "unknown matter" is space.
The ordinary matter (our detectable matter) is a highly compressed space matter and the space matter is highly compressed X-space matter and the X-space matter is highly compressed 2X-space matter and so on.
There are no FUNDAMENTAL particles. The volume formula is also applicable in the cause of X- ether particle production process and releasing of energy may be thousand times greater than the nuclear reaction.
----------------------------------
The above is from one of my source websites.
Do I not understand? Or is he wrong also?
FAR.
This is where FAR gets his physics lessons from...
http://tinyurl.com/ng2e7
Atheists believe in the big bang theory....as they should. This theory states that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. OK, so where did this atom or "singularity" come from??? Even if you believe in M theory(which there is absolutely NO proof of), you would still have the problem of how this "universe making machine" came into existence. So you're back at square one. NOTHING can be created out of nothing. Things just dont spontaneously appear from nothing, not even a single atom. Thank God a horse didn't spontaneously appear in my home while I was at work and defile my carpet. Things like that just don't happen. Even science states this. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve? Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise? Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home