Its All About the Evidence…Evidently!
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.
But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Read the rest of this entry »
Intellectually Fulfilled Theism
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Isn’t it interesting that 19th century (the great “death of God” era) Darwinian “science” made it possible for Dawkins to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but that late 20th century science has made faith and theism more rational and reasonable than ever before in human history (in my opinion)? It’s an interesting turn of events. The “science” in which Dawkins put his atheistic faith turned out to be bogus.
It turns out that the universe did not always exist, and that it began in a flash of light (high-frequency gamma rays, but that’s electromagnetic radiation, just like light, only much more highly energetic). And who would have expected in Darwin’s time that life was not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability, but on information, information processing, and nano-technology super-machines?
Paul had it all figured out 2,000 years ago when he pointed out in the book of Romans that we are without excuse to disbelieve, because God has made Himself evident in things that are made (i.e., designed), and these things are all around us, especially us, who are fearfully and wonderfully made.
ID, Darwinism, and Divine/Fallen Human Uniqueness
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Dear Teleological Folks,
I posted the following over at UncommonDescent.com but it is undoubtedly long lost in the comments. I thought it might be of interest here. As some of you may know, I used to be a militant, Dawkins-style atheist. All that changed in 1994 after I bought my five-year-old daughter a cartoon video entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Everything went downhill from there as I apostatized from my former religion of atheism. 
(Yes, it is a religion!)
***
The gap between humans and all other forms of life on the planet — in so many categories that one would have to write many books on the subject — is so profound that it represents the ultimate discontinuity in nature, which is characterized not by seamlessness, but by discontinuities. This is the antithesis of Darwinian philosophy.
As a former atheist, I would suggest that the great divide is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between materialists and those who recognize the uniqueness of humankind (this includes our great capacity for good, and our great capacity for evil). It is only by recognizing our divine origin — which seems increasingly difficult to deny, in my view — that we have any hope of cultivating the good and suppressing the evil. But this requires brutal self-honesty, which is antithetical to the fallen part of our nature referenced above.
These are ultimate issues, and are ultimately the only ones that really matter, because they affect and reflect upon all areas of our lives, which is why the (ID/Darwinism) debate is so heated.
Philosophy First Science
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
Sal’s recent OP about setting up a YC discussion blog got me thinking about the influence and role that philosophical presuppositions play in how one views science and scientific findings, or even in how one defines what science is. As I follow discussion after discussion on various blogsites regarding YEC v OEC v Naturalism, it becomes more and more clear that ones philosophical, theological or metaphysical presuppositions about the world play a very large and defining role is how one arrives at any conclusions about these matters, or even how one views evidence for or against these views. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the case that few will admit to these presuppositions, and try to make the case that they derive their position “purely” from the science itself. However, it doesn’t seem to me that a good case can be made for that position. Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Dawkins Gives Humility Lessons
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Humor, Theology
In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter: Read the rest of this entry »
Epistemology, Teleology, Originology, Eschatology — Scripture as Specified Complexity
Posted by scordova | Filed under Theology
Doubt and Certainty
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
In light of some of our recent discussions, I thought this is interesting.
Alister McGrath
Doubt and the Vain Search for Certainty
2006 –Å“ SummerWe cannot see God; we cannot touch him; we cannot demand that he give a public demonstration of his existence or character. We know of God only through faith. Yet the human mind wants more. “Give us a sign! Prove it!” It is an age-old problem. Those who heard Jesus’ teaching wanted a sign (Matthew 12:38)– something which would confirm his authority, which would convince them beyond any doubt.
Read the rest of this entry »
Keith Miller on Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Theology
Mike Gene makes a good argument against Keith Miller’s article Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation. However, I think the argument against Miller’s thesis is much simpler than that. But before I get into my rebuttal, am I the only one who is noticing the TE are on the rise to bash ID? You have people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, SC Morris, and now Keith Miller, all advocates God uses Darwinian evolution as a method of creation.
Let’s take a look at Keith Miller’s theological reasoning.
I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate. … The question for the Christian is then – What is the best interpretive framework for any given passage of scripture? I am convinced that the best interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor chronology are part of the intended message.
On what textual basis does he make that determination. Certainly, Genesis contains many literary techniques, including symbolism, metaphors and documentary devices. Although it does not contain specify dates and length of time it does specify the order of creation. There is no indication the creation account is metaphorical. Just as there is no indication to think this paragraph of mine is anything but a straight forward account of my critique of Miller’s quote. The question is why he chose that framework for interpretation. Is it based on his vast knowledge of ancient manuscripts and literary styles and techniques of documents in that period? Or is it base on his commitment to Darwinian evolution and in fear for a crisis in his faith? Read the rest of this entry »
Why Is AiG So Much More Holier than Thou?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
Denyse O’Leary just posted on some YEC’s criticism of ID. Well, having had first hand experience with the strident attack from young earth creationists, I can say their criticism toward ID is mild by comparison. I wonder if the strident attack that YEC have toward other Biblical Creationists is not due to an inferiority complex. They have established themselves as the Pope of Biblical Orthodoxy. They will readily acknowledge that many OEC like myself is Biblically sound in many (if not all) other doctrines except the day/age interpretation. For that we are Bible compromisers and adhere to heresy. Although not calling OEC heretics but just promoting heresies, is a distinction without a difference. AiG claims that this is just an inconsistent interpretation of Genesis. Now who is being inconsistent? Doesn’t AiG know (or purposely ignore) that this strident rhetoric will produce a group of young earth followers that makes ‘big bang’‚ adherence the test of orthodoxy? I know. I’ve been questioned about my salvation due to my acceptance of the big bang theory.
The problem with the YEC charge that OEC are Bible compromisers is arrogant to say the least. They would acknowledge many OEC like John Ankerberg, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser is faithful defenders of the Bible other than their inconsistent interpretation of the word YOM in Genesis. YEC can legitimately disagree with these scholars without resorting to name calling. Considering preeminent scholars like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer, both knowing eight to ten Old Testament languages.
The creation of the universe is dated in Genesis 1:1 as being “in the beginning.”‚ Of that we can be as certain as we are of revelation itself. The creation of Adam came six “days”‚ later, but one must be warned that right there in the first chapters of Genesis the Bible uses the word day with three different meanings: (1) daylight (Gen 1:5), (2) a twenty-four-hour day (Gen 1:14) and (3) an epoch or era, as we use the word in speaking of the “day”‚ of the horse and buggy or Abraham Lincoln’s “day”‚ (Gen 2:4; compare the RSV’s “In the day”‚ with the NIV’s “When”‚ ). I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day”‚ according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine. — Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (Page 103)
You can disagree with it and you can criticize it but to refer to people like this as Bible compromisers? Read the rest of this entry »
Christianity and ID
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
I will make my comment to Krauze’s post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive creation. Where we stand in that spectrum is less important than how we view Scripture.
As a fundamentalist I view the Bible as the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. The problem comes from how we interpret that Scripture. Do we interpret it willy-nilly or do we apply certain hermeneutic principles to the perspicuous understanding of that Scripture. In other words, the Scripture was written to be understood and followed by its adherents. In that sense it follows the same construct and literary principles of all other ancient documents. Read the rest of this entry »
Stargate SG-1 Joins the Attack on Christianity
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Theology
ID critics have long prevaricated ID as Creationism. The Darwinian PR campaign is certainly effective with the initiates. There are many fronts to the Darwinian PR campaign. We’ve seen their deception in the mainstream media and in pop culture TV programs.
Since I believe that Darwinian evolution is essentially an atheistic philosophy and not real science, the current ID debate has prompted certain ancillary criticism on Christianity. A recent example of such an attack was promoted in the science fiction series Stargate SG-1. This post is intended to defend against such attacks raised by the Stargate SG-1 program.
In season 9 of the Stargate series, it has introduced a race of Ascended beings called the Ori. The Ori are extremely powerful beings that once had physical bodies but now have evolved to an incorporeal plane of existence, giving them a godlike quality. (For more information on the Ori follow the above link.) The Ori are evil beings because they deceive their followers to worship them for their own benefits, in essence they gain strength from the worship of their followers. Anyone who refuses to worship them would be killed. The Ori also give false hope to its’ followers of the promise of Ascension, which provides immortality and enlightenment.
The worshippers of this Ori are portrayed as dupes who reject science and rationality. The worshippers would blindly annihilate an entire planet full of people at the whim of the Ori. These worshippers have been brainwashed to fear and obey the Ori with unquestioning loyalty and contrary to all moral discernments. Read the rest of this entry »
Origins, Atheism, Theism, and Faith
Posted by derudo | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
The subject of origins inevitably brings up questions about where we came from, why we are here, and what the purpose of life is (if such a thing exists). When it comes down to it, these are the only questions that are ultimately worth asking or seeking answers for.
When people ask why the unsolved mysteries of chemistry and physics are not the subject of debate when it comes to public education, I ask myself, What planet are these guys living on? These questions have no bearing on anything of ultimate significance.
If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, there is no reason why one should not commit suicide when things get tough. Once you are dead and the biochemical processes in your brain shut down, there are no consequences, there is no accountability, there is no memory.
One day our sun will become a red giant and its outer atmosphere will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. When that happens, the earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the oceans will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and our planet will be sterilized of all life for all eternity. There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever done.
If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, life is ultimately absurd. And the worst part is, this tragic, nihilistic, dark, cold, depressing philosophy doesn’t even make sense, and requires an unreasonable amount of blind faith. My favorite definition of reasonable faith is, “putting your trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.”
I have come to the conclusion that atheism/materialism requires blind faith, and that theism only requires reasonable faith. In order to be an atheist one must believe that nothing produced everything for no reason, that inert matter spontaneously generated life, that the personal came from the impersonal, that consciousness came from unconsciousness, that the equivalent of typographical errors turned rocks, atmospheric gasses and unspecified liquid concoctions into Chopin in 1017 seconds (and this list could be expanded). It seems to me that this is “unscientific,” magical thinking if ever such a thing existed.
I don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist.
I do not propose that atheism makes people bad, but that it is destructive because it logically destroys any ultimate sense of purpose in life. Without a sense of self-sacrificial purpose, life loses meaning, and at that point untold miseries are destined to abound.
Can We Live Without God?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Theology
Fox News interviewing Ravi Zacharias and Michael Shermer.
Sun., Dec. 25 at 9 p.m. ET
Repeats at midnight
by Lauren GreenA recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll finds that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, but nearly 70 percent think religion plays too small of a role in our lives. One reason may be because people just don’t talk about their faith very much — it’s kept private.
Join FOX News this weekend as we ask, “Can We Live Without God?”
From religion and politics to evolution and creation, pastors, scholars and individuals explain what gives meaning to their lives.
We’ll find out how their faith influences their lives and helps them make the moral and ethical choices we all face.
You’ll meet:
“¢ An evangelical pastor whose guide for dating, sex and marriage comes from directly the Bible
“¢ A Skeptic who turned to science for answers
“¢ A man who took his faith in God out of this world
Science Under Fire by Religious Darwinians
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Philosophy, Theology
Andrew Rowell over at ID in the United Kingdom justifiably express his outrage for the Lord May’s retiring annual address. I agree completely with Andrew that Lord May is completely ignorant of Christian fundamentalism. He used his address to go on a tirade of defamatory attack on Christianity. In a sense, I fully understand the threat that he feels. The Darwinian myth that is critical to atheistic belief is being threaten by ID. He is lashing out the only way he knows how, through mischaracterization and strawman arguments. The only problem is that his speech is woefully ignorant and non sequitur. Read the rest of this entry »
Francis Collins vs. Henry F. Schaefer
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
I don’t want to give the impression that I am trying to attack Dr. Collins. I am happy to know that he is a brother in Christ. However, I feel that he is seriously in error both theologically and, more importantly in the current context, scientifically. Therefore while I respect his prerogative to practice his faith in anyway that he sees fit, I must oppose his attempt to peddle Darwinism to other Christians.
As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I hope Dr. Collins would make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. I am not asking him to accept the theory of ID, just his support of a scientific debate.
I want to contrast Dr. Collins’ disparaging of ID with another prominent scientist Dr. Schaefer’s support of ID.
Collins: Darwin’s theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA.
More pontification on Francis Collins
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Theology
Let me try to further pontificate on Collins’ appeal to Christians for acceptance of evolution, in hope of making my criticism more clear. The harmony of faith and science that Collins is suggesting would effectively make the Bible subservient to secular science. What Collins wants Christians to do is if there are any conflicts of understanding of the natural world we should submit to secular science without dissent. The Bible must be wrong, because it is just mythology or textual redaction. Collins sees no conflict with faith and science because he has made faith subservient to science.
Ultimately all truth is God’s truth. If the earth is round then it is round for Christians and non-Christians. If Darwinian evolution is truth then it is true for Christians and non-Christians. However, what Collins wants is for Christians not to critically investigate science and blindly accept Darwinian propaganda. Regardless of one’s personal belief, there is plenty of room for skepticism of Darwinian evolution. What Collins is doing makes him look more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think Collins should make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. Faith and science does not have to be at odds with each other. For most Christians and this one in particular scientific investigation is a noble endeavor that leads to a greater understanding of the majesty of the Creator. Christians do not fear science because we believe that ultimately true science is congruent with Christian faith. What Dr. Collins should not do is tell fellow Christians to accept junk controversial science that is used to attack the very faith that he professes.
Christian Perspective on Francis Collins
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Evolution, Theology
I have the utmost respect for Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts but I am compelled to offer my disagreement with his recent 2 postings on his characterization of Christians and ID, here and here. Although this blog is not as popular or prominent as Telic Thoughts who by Mike Gene’s own acknowledgement is mostly ID evolutionists. This blog is mainly ID Creationists. So this posting will be my response to Mike and Collins’ comments.
Yet Collins can speak to dozens, even hundreds, of churches and I’m afraid the payoff will remain quite meager. The reason is simple; the notion that science and faith conflict is not housed solely within the Church. On the contrary, this is the war cry of those who seek to advance an agenda of secularism.
I agree Collins’ message will not be popular to Christians but not for the reason that Mike thinks. I will explain in a minute. There is a culture war between people of faith and the secularists. However, this is not the reason why Christians reject Darwinism. It is not even because of the jaundice views of Dawkins lending support to Darwinism.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Irony of Atheism
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Philosophy, Theology
Dembski at Uncommon Descent quotes Barbara Forrest from her article “The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35.4 (Dec 2000), 861-889
However, religion cannot help us find meaning in any honest sense unless it can assimilate the truth about where human beings have come from, and the only real knowledge we have about where we came from we have acquired through science.
Consider the words of a staunch atheist like Jean-Paul Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre was correct in stating that man required an infinite reference point in order for life to have any meaning. Since Sartre didn’t believe there was such a reference point, he stated, “Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not” and “Man is a useless passion.” Read the rest of this entry »
Bad Speculations and Bad Interpretations
Posted by fdocc | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
Macroevolutionary Darwinism is a bad speculation that has been presented as such so many times, for example in the book by David C. Stove “Darwinian Fairytales” (free download):
As well as David C. Stove’s related article “So You Think You Are a Darwinian?”
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm
Now that public schools will be presenting scientific criticisms to Darwin’s theory in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and probably in Kansas and others, I want to have this thread as a place where students can search for related material, mostly as online books and articles.
See some highlights and links to the official document “Critical Analysis of Evolution“:
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/critical.htm
However, as bad as bad speculations are, also are bad those bad interpretations of the Bible, no matter how generalized those private interpretations may be in our society. Read the rest of this entry »
Darwinism mindset : A Problem with Nasa?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Here is an example of the fantasy mindset of NASA. In this Tim Russert interview with 3 crew members on Discovery, consider their baseless assertions.
MR. RUSSERT: The question for all of you: planet Earth, in the Milky Way galaxy–Milky Way just one of 100 billion galaxies–do any of you have any doubt that there’s intelligent life beyond Earth?
DR. THOMAS: Well, Tim, you’re quite right, the universe is a vast ocean and we are barely wetting out feet in the beach of that ocean. There are huge distances out there. The immensity is almost unimaginable. Given that, I would say it’s highly likely that there is life somewhere out there in some form, probably a form that’s not even recognizable to us.
DR. CAMARDA: I would say probably odds are there is intelligent life out there.
COL. COLLINS: I also do believe that. I think it would be–it’s kind of unimaginable that, you know, we would really be alone in this universe. I think that, you know, probably not our generation but future generations of people on Earth will find intelligent life.
Let’s carefully analyze their answers for a moment. First, what is the basis for their confidence in the existence of ET life? The universe is a big. It is really big. It’s kind of unimaginable that we are alone in the universe. Do these sound like educated and scientific conclusions? No they sound more like a religious belief and wishful thinking. Read the rest of this entry »
