Just a quick note to "Russ" who left a comment. I just wanted to let you know that although your comment was well written and you were kind in your approach, I'm not going to post it for a couple reasons. You are certainly encouraged to contact me so I can explain that in further detail if you'd like.
[added in edit: I'm rejecting other comments coming from pz's choir as well. This is due to the fact that I have addressed your accusations and comments in previous posts on my blog.
If you take the time to read some of my posts, you'll find that I don't fit the mold many of you have seemed to carve out for me.]
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Ugh...
The only thing that comes to my mind this morning is the chorus of a song by R.E.M.
But, I’m a good sport, so congratulations go out to the Democrats! Maybe they can make a change for the better (God help us all)...just kidding (I think). Honestly, it might be good to shake things up there on Capital Hill.
Hey, but on a better note Willard and Bacon were reelected to the Kansas board of education! Cool...
It's the end of the world as we know it.The Democrats took the house...
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
But, I’m a good sport, so congratulations go out to the Democrats! Maybe they can make a change for the better (God help us all)...just kidding (I think). Honestly, it might be good to shake things up there on Capital Hill.
Hey, but on a better note Willard and Bacon were reelected to the Kansas board of education! Cool...
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Welcome all Darwinists!!!
Sources tell me that there are quite a few Darwinists perusing my blog today. I thought I might as well give them something to squeal about. Here are a few posts that they might like.
This one mentions their friend PZ Myer, and this one gives my review of the Dawkins lecture at KU.
Enjoy....
This one mentions their friend PZ Myer, and this one gives my review of the Dawkins lecture at KU.
Enjoy....
Track election results
You can track the Kansas election results here.
I can't even bear to peek, so let me know if it's looking good for the Republicans...
I can't even bear to peek, so let me know if it's looking good for the Republicans...
Read this before you cast your vote
Moonglow left a comment this morning about an email she received today. It certainly deserves front page consideration:
Thanks so much for sharing this with us, Moonglow!!
Senator Tim Huelskamp
News from the State Capitol
November 4, 2006
State Capitol-262-E • Topeka, KS 66612
Phone: (785) 296-7359 • (800) 432-3924
Fax: (810) 821-2712 • E-mail: thuelska@ink.org
We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the Strong.
Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?
John Page (letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 20, 1776)
Table of Contents
Is Kansas for Sale?
Not that I didn’t believe Phill Kline – but many others didn’t. And they must be shocked – Phill Kline was telling the truth.
And George Tiller is shaking in his boots this evening – and most likely writing another $500,000 in campaign checks.
I am certain Tiller – the late-term abortion specialist headquartered in Wichita – was watching Fox News this evening. In a segment on the O’Reilly Factor, it was revealed that the Attorney General investigation -- so hounded by the liberal media, Paul Morrison and Governor Sebelius – actually has found multiple violations of crimes by Tiller and other abortionists! The so-called fishing expedition has certainly landed a huge catch – evidence that could put Tiller and his associates behind bars for years to come.
And that’s why, my friends, Tiller has pulled out his checkbook once again. Once again you say? Isn’t his large $250,000 PAC enough? No.
What about the two new secretive fake corporations who have been sending up to a half dozen mailings to households across the state – Kansans for Consumer Privacy and Progress Kansas. It is now pretty clear that these are illicitly bankrolled by Tiller – in an attempt to circumvent IRS and campaign finance laws. A conservative estimate would put these at another cool $250,000. Isn’t this enough? No.
What about the campaign fundraisers hosted by George Tiller and his pro-abortion associates? Don’t know how much was spent – but certainly lined Paul Morrison’s campaign kitty with thousands in out-of-state dollars. Isn’t this enough? No.
How about the newest Billionaire on your campaign block – Jim and Virginia Stowers of Missouri? As big-time mutual fund players, the Stowers earned billions of dollars. Yes, billions with a B. They are behind a multi-state effort involving millions upon millions in deceptive political advertising design to do one thing – defeat anyone opposed to cloning and using your tax dollars to pay for it. Isn’t this enough? No.
Tiller must be desperate this evening. He will bankroll another last-minute round of personal attacks on Phill Kline – just like he did in 2002. To keep himself out of prison…
Although we’ll never know the total spent to defeat Phill Kline and foist the pro-abortion, anti-life agenda of these Tiller and Stowers fanatics – I do know what they believe. They believe that Kansas is for sale – and that somehow Kansans are too stupid or too disengaged or too naïve to see through their obscene, immoral tactics. Are we?
Never before in the history of Kansas has someone so blatantly attempted to purchase our political system and protect themselves from the law. Will you stand by idly and let that happen?
I am certain you will vote – that is a given. But will you do more? Will you call 30 friends and ask them to support Phill Kline? Will you e-mail your entire address book and encourage them to go vote for Phill Kline? Will you spend time fasting and praying for righteousness in this election?
Kansas should not be for sale, dear friends. May our actions prove it.
Paul Morrison: Auctioning Justice to the Highest Bidder?
Growing increasingly concerned about campaign promises made by Paul Morrison, I penned the following editorial weeks ago and sent it to multiple newspapers. They refused to publish it. Now we know why – they all endorsed Paul Morrison…
Paul Morrison: Justice is for Sale?
We expect the Attorney General to investigate suspected crimes. In doing so, Attorney General Phill Kline demonstrated probable cause of multiple criminal violations to a judge in Topeka. In response, the judge subpoenaed medical records from two entities. These entities then demanded the Kansas Supreme Court stop the inquiry – which the Court wisely allowed to continue.
Now here comes Paul Morrison – who is challenging Kline for Attorney General. Morrison has not only accepted significant campaign contributions from those under criminal investigation – in exchange, he has publicly promised to drop the entire case. Morrison makes these unprecedented campaign pledges despite his lack of knowledge of these cases – for they remain sealed by the Court.
These actions by Morrison suggest an appalling conclusion -- if you give enough money to his campaign, he just may dismiss any criminal charges against you. Never before in the history of Kansas has an Attorney General candidate accepted campaign contributions from someone under investigation – much less promising to drop the case as soon as he takes office.
Halting a criminal investigation because the suspected individual is a hefty campaign contributor should make you ineligible for any political office, especially that of Attorney General of Kansas.
Kansas in Job Growth Deficit
Despite the $2 million in advertising claiming otherwise, the Sebelius state economy is upside down.
According to an analysis of the most recent data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, Kansas continues to suffer from Job Growth Deficit.
From January to August of 2006, Kansas ranked #50 in private job growth in the entire nation – losing 3,800 jobs. In fact, Kansas is only one of three states to have an actual loss of jobs in this calendar year.
Meanwhile, the other side of the coin – during the same time period, the Sebelius Government was #1 in government job growth. They added another 15,800 new government jobs – an increase of more than 6%. Just think what another four years of growth like this would mean…
Monday, November 06, 2006
Vote Kline
Lovely, one more thing to try to pin Kline with the day before elections. Unbelievable. God only knows what is actually going on here.
Hey, people....VOTE FOR KLINE. I’ve seen the liberals distort the facts about him over and over throughout this campaign. It’s pathetic.
At least they got this part right:
From the article:
Irigonegaray represents anything and everything that will lead our country down the slope to moral decay. That’s apparently his calling in life. Whether it’s representing gay marriage, abortion, or cramming Darwinian evolution down our students throats, you’ll find Pedro leading the pack. Of course, you’ll not hear him voice concern for those children who are the victims of rape in these abortion cases. And, if those women are “depressed” do you think an abortion is going to better their state of mind??
Irigonegaray states that:
At the end of the article, we find that:
VOTE KLINE!!!
Hey, people....VOTE FOR KLINE. I’ve seen the liberals distort the facts about him over and over throughout this campaign. It’s pathetic.
At least they got this part right:
Attorney General Phill Kline obtained the records recently after a two-year battle that prompted privacy concerns. He has said he sought the records to review them for evidence of possible crimes including rape and illegal abortions.And, that is a good thing. He shouldn’t be demonized for it. Rape and illegal abortions ARE CRIMES. Let’s try to remember that fact.
From the article:
During a Friday night broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," the conservative host said a "source inside" told the show that Tiller performs late-term abortions when a patient is depressed, which O'Reilly deemed "executing babies."I have no clue as to how O’Reilly got the report, but why are they focusing all their attention on Kline when clearly this abortion clinic should be questioned about their ethics. Children ages 10-15 need someone to stand up for them. If they’ve been raped or are having abortions without their parents knowledge, it’s just wrong, IMO.
O'Reilly also said his show has evidence that Tiller's clinic and another unnamed clinic have broken Kansas law by failing to report potential rapes with victims ages 10 to 15.
"Our information says that on almost every medical sheet -- and obviously we have a source inside here -- it says, 'depression,"' O'Reilly told Kline during the broadcast. "I don't know whether you have that information or not -- I don't know -- but that's what it says."And what the heck is the deal with late-term abortions being performed on patients who are “depressed”? Is that the clinical diagnosis needed in order to perform a late-term abortion???!
Pedro Irigonegaray, who represents Tiller and the clinics, said it was "preposterous" that the information would come from an insider at one of the clinics.Typical. ..
Irigonegaray represents anything and everything that will lead our country down the slope to moral decay. That’s apparently his calling in life. Whether it’s representing gay marriage, abortion, or cramming Darwinian evolution down our students throats, you’ll find Pedro leading the pack. Of course, you’ll not hear him voice concern for those children who are the victims of rape in these abortion cases. And, if those women are “depressed” do you think an abortion is going to better their state of mind??
Irigonegaray states that:
"This has been our concern from the beginning, that if he ended up with these records, that just this type of event would occur. Our worst nightmare has happened," Irigonegaray said. "Women in America deserve better than this."They sure do, Pedro. They deserve to be treated like humans and counseled through their depression or rape case. Ripping a child out of their womb is not going to better their situation.
At the end of the article, we find that:
The documents Kline received were edited so that individual patients could not be identified.Then what is the big deal??! If the patients were not even identified, obviously Kline is looking to stop anything unethical that is going on in the clinic. He’s not out to exploit these women in any way.
VOTE KLINE!!!
Sunday, November 05, 2006
A Dolphin with a mutant fin
Apparently, Darwinists are claiming in this article that the mutant fin on a dolphin captured last month might be the “remains of hind legs” .
Seiji Osumi states that:
"I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land ... this is an unprecedented discovery,”Um...Right.
Wonder what this says about evolution:
Read this for a dose of reality.
Hey, wanna see some really cool mutants? Check it out...
[disclaimer: not all examples above are true mutants. LOL!]
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Evolution’s Happy Accident?
I haven’t had the chance to ask my source about peer-reviewed articles explaining the Big O yet, but ya gotta love google. There all kinds of articles out there offering speculation on the evolution of the orgasm.
Here’s an interesting one.
Then there is this article which makes the statement:
Oh Yeah? LOL... Well, I beg to differ.
Let's think it through...
First of all we have to go back in time to that first little blob that appeared on the earth after the big bang spat out our universe from absolutely nothing. Then we’d have to assume that our little blob eventually evolved some type of asexual reproductive mechanism. God only knows how that occurred! Whoops....no, God wouldn’t have known because Darwinian evolution doesn’t require God to even exist.
So, anyway, this little asexual blob eventually plops out another blob like itself and through time, natural selection, and a whole lot of luck eventually some of these newer generation of blobs start to kinda take a liking to each other and produce more offspring.
Wait right there...
Unless there is some reason for these little blobs to have sex with each other, why the heck would that function ever evolve? Did two of them accidentally slap up against each other one evening and from that happy slapping a new life form appeared?
Did they even realize that the new life form was a result of their happy slapping? And was it really “happy” slapping or was it just a purely accidental slap with no tingly feelings? If it was a happy encounter, how did the happy feel-good thingy that was doing the slapping evolve? If it wasn’t a happy encounter, why do it again?
Furthermore, they couldn’t possibly know what to do with these new blobs they created unless altruism had already evolved in the previously evolving blobs.
Good grief, talk about fairy tales.
But, by all means keep working on this spectacular story that everything evolved from that first spark of life. It means nothing to science whether that actually occurred or not, but please spend billions trying to piece it together for us, because in the end it will provide further support for Intelligent Design.
Science advances due to research of commonality between species and adaptation within a species. The result of this type of research is solidly supported by empirical evidence. The common descent via that first living organism inclusion is irrelevant to science, but let’s not say that too loudly...whispering...the “scientific community” isn't keen on accepting that fact.
Here’s an interesting one.
Then there is this article which makes the statement:
I will argue that men do not generally have sex for orgasm but for a different kind of pleasure. If men did not have orgasms, I doubt that the species would die out or that men would have much less, if any less, sex or interest in it.
Oh Yeah? LOL... Well, I beg to differ.
Let's think it through...
First of all we have to go back in time to that first little blob that appeared on the earth after the big bang spat out our universe from absolutely nothing. Then we’d have to assume that our little blob eventually evolved some type of asexual reproductive mechanism. God only knows how that occurred! Whoops....no, God wouldn’t have known because Darwinian evolution doesn’t require God to even exist.
So, anyway, this little asexual blob eventually plops out another blob like itself and through time, natural selection, and a whole lot of luck eventually some of these newer generation of blobs start to kinda take a liking to each other and produce more offspring.
Wait right there...
Unless there is some reason for these little blobs to have sex with each other, why the heck would that function ever evolve? Did two of them accidentally slap up against each other one evening and from that happy slapping a new life form appeared?
Did they even realize that the new life form was a result of their happy slapping? And was it really “happy” slapping or was it just a purely accidental slap with no tingly feelings? If it was a happy encounter, how did the happy feel-good thingy that was doing the slapping evolve? If it wasn’t a happy encounter, why do it again?
Furthermore, they couldn’t possibly know what to do with these new blobs they created unless altruism had already evolved in the previously evolving blobs.
Good grief, talk about fairy tales.
But, by all means keep working on this spectacular story that everything evolved from that first spark of life. It means nothing to science whether that actually occurred or not, but please spend billions trying to piece it together for us, because in the end it will provide further support for Intelligent Design.
Science advances due to research of commonality between species and adaptation within a species. The result of this type of research is solidly supported by empirical evidence. The common descent via that first living organism inclusion is irrelevant to science, but let’s not say that too loudly...whispering...the “scientific community” isn't keen on accepting that fact.
President Bush in Topeka
It would have been interesting to attend the President Bush shindig at the Expocentre here in Topeka today. Though at this point, I’m just thoroughly looking forward to Wednesday of next week. All the back stabbing and political scandals coming out of the woodwork is just more than I can stomach.
Tell ya what. I’m waiting for a year when someone stands up and refuses to use negative campaign tactics. They’ll get my vote.
I’d give my thoughts on who to vote for, but I’ve no doubt my readers are already quite certain of how they will place their votes.
As it stands there are so many lies and misleading information swimming around out there that it’s impossible to know whether people are going to the polls and voting for someone who supports their own viewpoint or not.
Politics....yuck!
Tell ya what. I’m waiting for a year when someone stands up and refuses to use negative campaign tactics. They’ll get my vote.
I’d give my thoughts on who to vote for, but I’ve no doubt my readers are already quite certain of how they will place their votes.
As it stands there are so many lies and misleading information swimming around out there that it’s impossible to know whether people are going to the polls and voting for someone who supports their own viewpoint or not.
Politics....yuck!
Dawkins and I agree on something!!! WOW!
Dawkins is featured in a Minnesota Start Tribune article. This guy is really making the rounds to sell his new book, The God Delusion.
Yup, evolutionary biology and atheism is Dawkins claim to fame. Of course, he also wants religious thought wiped off the face of the earth as well.
People! The nation needs to wake up to what the so called “scientific community” is doing here. This evolution/ID debate is obviously a worldview issue as well as a scientific one.
Our students are screwed if we don’t start providing them with answers to the hard questions people ask regarding the Christian faith because the universities are pushing with everything they’ve got to enforce this “secular” teaching style which in reality is teaching our children how to become agnostics.
Secularism apparently rules out ID because there are religious implications to the theory. Hello? Are they trying to convince me that Darwinian evolution does not have religious implications! Aspects of evolution are held on faith as well.
Dawkins states that:
Atheists should think very carefully before joining camp with Dawkins. He is every bit as dangerous as fanatical religious types. He wants religious “indoctrination” to be stopped. Give the guy any power and there will be someone knocking on my door when I’m reading the Bible with my children. Scary...
Isn’t support of pluralism what is necessary in order for people to show tolerance for religious and non-religious views? We don’t have to agree with each other, but we should be respectful and tolerant of one another otherwise we’re looking into the face of a situation that could lead to war. I thought that is what Dawkins was trying to avoid.
But, hey! Looky here...
Dawkins is asked:
DO IT.
Here are some books to start with:
The BIBLE
I Don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist, Geisler & Turek
Books written by:
Ralph Muncaster
Norm Geisler
Josh McDowell
Lee Strobel
Francis Schaeffer
Hank Hanegraaff
J. Budziskewski
Paul Maier, Eusebius-The Church History, and Josephus: The Essential Works
Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth
It is imperative that Christians in today’s skeptical society are able to provide answers to the difficult questions being asked regarding our faith.
1 Peter 3:15
Yup, evolutionary biology and atheism is Dawkins claim to fame. Of course, he also wants religious thought wiped off the face of the earth as well.
People! The nation needs to wake up to what the so called “scientific community” is doing here. This evolution/ID debate is obviously a worldview issue as well as a scientific one.
Our students are screwed if we don’t start providing them with answers to the hard questions people ask regarding the Christian faith because the universities are pushing with everything they’ve got to enforce this “secular” teaching style which in reality is teaching our children how to become agnostics.
Secularism apparently rules out ID because there are religious implications to the theory. Hello? Are they trying to convince me that Darwinian evolution does not have religious implications! Aspects of evolution are held on faith as well.
Dawkins states that:
"Clearly there is value in a peaceful, amicable society. But pluralism is not in itself a praiseworthy value. If you're telling me that it's a good thing we have diversity of belief that includes the Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses and people who don't get their kids medical care when they need it, you're wrong".So what ya gonna do about that, Richard? You keep telling us that religion is harmful and must be done away with, but how are you going to make that happen without supporting or promoting violence and hatred?
Atheists should think very carefully before joining camp with Dawkins. He is every bit as dangerous as fanatical religious types. He wants religious “indoctrination” to be stopped. Give the guy any power and there will be someone knocking on my door when I’m reading the Bible with my children. Scary...
Isn’t support of pluralism what is necessary in order for people to show tolerance for religious and non-religious views? We don’t have to agree with each other, but we should be respectful and tolerant of one another otherwise we’re looking into the face of a situation that could lead to war. I thought that is what Dawkins was trying to avoid.
But, hey! Looky here...
Dawkins is asked:
Q What would you most like to tell people of faith?His response?
A Be skeptical -- truly examine your faith. Ask yourself if there is evidence for your beliefs. Reflect on the fact that you are most likely of the faith you happen to have been brought up in, and that if you'd been born into a different faith, you'd be equally fervent about it.BINGO! EXAMINE YOUR FAITH. Ask yourself if there is evidence for your beliefs.
DO IT.
Here are some books to start with:
The BIBLE
I Don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist, Geisler & Turek
Books written by:
Ralph Muncaster
Norm Geisler
Josh McDowell
Lee Strobel
Francis Schaeffer
Hank Hanegraaff
J. Budziskewski
Paul Maier, Eusebius-The Church History, and Josephus: The Essential Works
Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth
It is imperative that Christians in today’s skeptical society are able to provide answers to the difficult questions being asked regarding our faith.
1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
The Big O
The other night, my husband and I were....well....having an extremely good time together, and at the very height of our lively romp, something crazy entered my mind.....
~~How do Darwinists explain the evolutionary sequences that led to achieving an orgasm??!~~
Now, granted I realize this tells you how deep my obsession with the Evo/ID debate runs, but still - it is an interesting question.
Hmmm.....I wonder if there are any peer-reviewed articles on this topic. I can certainly think of some extraordinary "just so stories" for this one!
In fact, I’ve only heard a few lame "just so stories" that attempt to give an explanation for the evolutionary events that led to sexual reproduction.
Hey, I know just who to ask about this - if he gives me any answers, I’ll let you know...
~~How do Darwinists explain the evolutionary sequences that led to achieving an orgasm??!~~
Now, granted I realize this tells you how deep my obsession with the Evo/ID debate runs, but still - it is an interesting question.
Hmmm.....I wonder if there are any peer-reviewed articles on this topic. I can certainly think of some extraordinary "just so stories" for this one!
In fact, I’ve only heard a few lame "just so stories" that attempt to give an explanation for the evolutionary events that led to sexual reproduction.
Hey, I know just who to ask about this - if he gives me any answers, I’ll let you know...
Friday, November 03, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
A book review
Jonathan Wells offers an extremely interesting book review for Kirschner and Gerhart’s, The Plausibility of Life.
Driving with Grandma
Received this funny email today:
The other day I went up to a local Christian bookstore and saw a honk if you love Jesus bumper sticker.
I was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought the sticker and put in on my bumper.
I was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good He is and I didn't notice that the light had changed.
It is a good thing someone else loves Jesus because if he hadn't honked, I'd never have noticed.
I found that LOTS of people love Jesus. Why, while I was sitting there, the guy behind started honking like crazy, and he leaned out of his window and screamed, "for the love of God, GO! GO!" What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus.
Everyone started honking! I just leaned out of my window and started waving and smiling at all these loving people.
I even honked my horn a few times to share in the love. There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a sunny beach...
I saw another guy waving in a funny way with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. When I asked my teenage grandson in the back seat what that meant, he said that it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something.
Well, I've never met anyone from Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign back.
My grandson burst out laughing, why even he was enjoying this religious experience.
A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me.
I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed.
So, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection.
I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that I had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away.
Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks!
Another chat with Jeremy
Okay, let’s see if I can respond to some of Jeremy’s comments and questions...
Jeremy wrote:
I have and will always believe that the universe was designed by an uncaused first cause. There is no doubt in the minds of the majority of the human race that we are not the byproduct of a mere accident which occurred billions of years ago. What we find in the heavens has the look and feel of a masterpiece. There is purpose, symmetry, and a lack of chaos that is beyond anything one can reasonably say is the byproduct of an accident that burped into existence from nothing.
My faith lies in the fact that I have no doubt that there is a Creator, but in order for me to know who or what that Creator is, I must examine the evidence that might support what various religions hold as truth.
So it seems to make sense to me that I should not merely pick a god to have faith in and then decide to go with that set of religious beliefs on blind faith. I was brought up as a Christian, but there comes a time when we all question whether are beliefs are valid. Personally, I believe that it is very important to look at all belief systems and consider whether one particular set of religious beliefs has more evidence for its validity that the others. If there is a creator of our universe, which I believe from considering my surroundings that there most certainly is, then there can be only one truth as to who or what that creator is. It is illogical to believe that all religions lead to the same true creator, and if they are all wrong, it’s irrelevant to consider choosing one at all. So, we must consider evidence in order to know our creator. There are many ways to go about this, and we’ve discussed a few in private conversations. I hope to get to those in future posts.
Jeremy wrote:
And, I agree that this is a great way to come to faith in God. Like you, I am also amazed at how we can find God at work in people’s lives. My friend lost her husband to cancer a few weeks ago, and throughout their seven year ordeal it was absolutely incredible to watch God at work in their lives. I talked with her last night and she is doing amazingly well. I sometimes feel like I want to help her in some way because I think about how heart breaking it would be to lose my own husband, but each time I talk with her, it’s my faith that is strengthened and I walk away simply energized by her strength and her faith in God.
But, my question to you would be why is it that you choose ~Christianity~ as the religious preference in which you place your faith. Is it because you were brought up in that faith, and if so what about a Muslim or a Jew who was brought up in their particular faith? Are all religions equal and simply a way in which we try to understand our creator? Major religions differ considerably, so it would stand to reason that there can only be one correct option or they are all wrong. Personally, I believe that for something as important as considering the creator of the universe, we should give ample consideration to all religious beliefs and discern whether there is one particular belief system which gives more supporting evidence for its claims.
Jeremy wrote:
Without even considering what the Bible, which supports the Christian ~faith~, says about God’s creation and observing His hand in the creative process, let’s just consider your thoughts regarding natural causes.
On the surface, your idea that God works through “natural” processes without “interrupting or interfering” is interesting. But, not only does this assure “genuine freedom”, it also eliminates the possibility of miracles outside of natural causes.
Your “alternative idea” would certainly not allow for miracles, a relationship with the creator through prayer, answers to prayer, and of course a risen Saviour would be out of the question. All of these things require supernatural occurrences in which the creator allows miraculous things to occur in our natural world. Traditional Christianity is based on Christ’s death and resurrection and our Creator’s plan to have a relationship with us. Peter, Paul, the apostles and countless numbers of early Christians died for these beliefs. Many of the apostles had eye witness accounts to base their beliefs upon.
Also, within this “alternative idea”, Jesus’ words to Thomas would not apply to blind faith or anything else for that matter because if one does not believe that God works in ways that are outside of nature, then Jesus’ words to Thomas were nonsensical. For a person who does not believe that the Creator of the Universe can step in and act, this story could have nothing to do with the nail imprints that Thomas was seeking as evidence of Christ‘s resurrection from death as this would clearly be a supernatural occurrence.
On the other hand, if one examines the evidence that supports scriptural truth, one can come to have faith that the death and resurrection of Christ and other biblical prophecies were fulfilled through God’s guidance in ways that conflict with natural causes as we know them. In that case, miracles happen and that leaves the door wide open to allow God to create the world in whatever way He chose to do it - naturally/supernaturally/whatever. God is beyond our understanding and can act in whatever way he deems necessary.
This is why it is important for a Christian to consider supporting evidence for the validity of scriptural truth. I’ve yet to ever hear a theistic evolutionist speak of Christian apologetics, in fact they usually reject the idea upfront. They dismiss these arguments that support the accuracy of scripture and assume that those who study these issues do not have faith and therefore need evidence.
But, what the TE has done is left our children with no option other than blind faith in a creator. Why would one choose faith in the God of Christianity when miracles and so much of biblical history is assumed by some people to be merely ancient story telling with some type of deeper meaning to the listener? Some form of deism or panentheism seems to me to be the only option in regard to a faith in this type of god.
As far as blind faith is concerned, I can have ~faith~ and ~strong feelings~ about many things, that doesn’t mean that they are correct. It also stands to reason that if there is evidence to be found for God’s word being true, it should certainly be analyzed and shared with others. There may be a poor soul out there who has strong feelings that the creator sent a non-detectible message through the glass of milk that he was drinking from that our Creator lives in a bubble in the outer depths of the universe, yet without lines of evidence to support this revelation, it would be rather useless to conform to this individual’s faith in the bubble god.
I’ve watched these “Christians” of “blind faith” stand up with atheists and support everything the atheist has to say without blinking an eye. Do they not realize that they are playing right into the atheist’s hands?
Blind faith is worthless.
[Jeremy, when I put quotation marks around the word "Christian", I am ~not~ referring to you. My personal belief at this point is that you lie somewhere in the middle of these differences in opinion, and I’m still not quite sure exactly where you stand on many of these issues. From what I understand you do believe in miracles and Christ’s death and resurrection. If that is true, then you are a Christian in the traditional sense, IMO.]
Jeremy wrote:
No, I am not saying that everyone must prescribe to my viewpoint, and I do not feel that students in the public school system must consider the world through the “lens of what this creator had in mind for us...”. What I am saying is that there are many scientists and people in the general public who do consider intelligent design as a legitimate scientific inference, and we should not be singled out and waved off as being unscientific.
I am also saying that TE’s and atheists feel that their religious/non-religious “faith” is being tampered with as well as their faith in what ~they feel~ man has without a doubt concluded as being true within the field of science.
I am also suggesting that Intelligent Design is the best inference that we have in regard to origins. The scientific community has never had a problem putting forth ideas like primordial soup or Miller-Urey which by today’s standards are quite lame. ID offers far more scientific support than either of those theories.
ID is the best science has to offer in regard to origins and until Dawkins, Harvard University or whoever comes up with a better option, ID should be considered.
David Lui from Harvard University seems quite certain that we will find our answers as to the origins of life and it will require no divine intervention:
But, until that time comes, we cannot assume that natural causes give conclusive support for our origins.
I think perhaps that is your fear - that science will eventually eliminate the need for a creator. That is where you believe your faith alone is vital to your belief system.
While I heartily support Harvard’s endeavor, my faith lies in the truth of scripture and I have faith that the divine creator exists and there is no getting away from that fact.
But, as you can see from that article, ID has pushed science to new levels and there will be even greater strides in trying to find a way to explain our origins. This is awesome in my opinion. There will always be those who believe that there is a designer, there will always be those who believe that natural causes explain everything in our world, and there will always be those who teeter in the middle not quite willing to take a stand one way or the other. Nevertheless, our current best scientific theories for origins should be laid out for our students to consider, and ID is certainly in that category. And, it is entirely possible to consider ID without letting personal religious views get in the way. The theory of Intelligent Design has nothing to do with my belief that Christ died for my sins and will one day return for me and all believers.
Jeremy wrote:
No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools.
I had been taught in the public school that there was only one way in which our world evolved and that was presented to me as fact. I honestly felt at the time that science was taking on more than could actually be empirically detectible, but I really didn’t give it much more thought than that. I took them at their word while having absolutely no idea at the time that there were scientists who are able to give clear evidence that some of these “factual” theories are quite questionable.
When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“.
And, as far as letting science advance on it’s own and following the evidence where it leads, it is a fact that many scientists have stated that they are out to stop religion and some have gone as far as saying that is why they do what they do. ~Everyone~ comes to the table with prior beliefs and commitments. That is not a fact that is exclusively held by IDists. You are aware that even Dawkins sees design in nature, but his prior commitment to naturalism will not allow for him to follow that particular line of evidence.
Jeremy wrote:
Well, actually I’ve talked to quite a few atheists about this and they’ve all stated that they would ~not~ believe in a god by faith alone. That is why they follow science in the first place - they need evidence. The problem is that the atheistic “scientific community” has only allowed for one line of evidence to be considered and that is why we have seen the number of atheists grow considerably. Atheists also love the fact that some Christians feel the need to “update” interpretations of the Bible (as you yourself have stated). They know that this will quickly eliminate the truth of scripture and destroy the deity of Christ. They also realize that these progressive interpretations will lead right straight toward atheism. Eugenie Scott is a pro at this approach.
Jeremy wrote:
And, just how far will this “updating” go? If you plan on going too far, Jeremy, Christianity will eventually mean nothing. You might as well start a new religion based on blind faith in a god of natural causes. Sounds like a form of panentheism to me.
Theistic evolutionists are far to awestruck with man's current scientific inferences and speculation. It seems to me that something this important would encourage a person to consider Christian apologetics before tossing their traditional Christian faith out the closest window in exchange for a deistic or panentheistic belief system that coincides with current scientific consensus.
Your questions regarding what should be taught in the classroom in regard to ID will have to come in another post as this one is far too long already.
Thanks again for your comments. I have a lot of respect for you and your approach in discussing these issues.
[A few words in this post have been changed for further clarification.]
Jeremy wrote:
Forthekids wrote:
"I don’t 'look to science to validate my faith'".
But you have said in the past that if you didn’t see any evidence for the God of the Bible, you would most likely not be a believer. This means you require evidence as a prerequisite for your faith. Essentially, you have the same requirement for belief that most atheists do. The difference is that you think the evidence exists and atheists do not.
I have and will always believe that the universe was designed by an uncaused first cause. There is no doubt in the minds of the majority of the human race that we are not the byproduct of a mere accident which occurred billions of years ago. What we find in the heavens has the look and feel of a masterpiece. There is purpose, symmetry, and a lack of chaos that is beyond anything one can reasonably say is the byproduct of an accident that burped into existence from nothing.
My faith lies in the fact that I have no doubt that there is a Creator, but in order for me to know who or what that Creator is, I must examine the evidence that might support what various religions hold as truth.
So it seems to make sense to me that I should not merely pick a god to have faith in and then decide to go with that set of religious beliefs on blind faith. I was brought up as a Christian, but there comes a time when we all question whether are beliefs are valid. Personally, I believe that it is very important to look at all belief systems and consider whether one particular set of religious beliefs has more evidence for its validity that the others. If there is a creator of our universe, which I believe from considering my surroundings that there most certainly is, then there can be only one truth as to who or what that creator is. It is illogical to believe that all religions lead to the same true creator, and if they are all wrong, it’s irrelevant to consider choosing one at all. So, we must consider evidence in order to know our creator. There are many ways to go about this, and we’ve discussed a few in private conversations. I hope to get to those in future posts.
Jeremy wrote:
I have a different view of the relationship between evidence and faith. I do not require evidence as a prerequisite for my faith. For me, faith comes first and then I look at the world in light of my faith. When I do so, I can detect God at work in my life and in the lives of those around me. Although my experiences are not the same type of evidence that ID supporters claim to have, they are still meaningful to me. All that is required is for me to be openly receptive to God.
And, I agree that this is a great way to come to faith in God. Like you, I am also amazed at how we can find God at work in people’s lives. My friend lost her husband to cancer a few weeks ago, and throughout their seven year ordeal it was absolutely incredible to watch God at work in their lives. I talked with her last night and she is doing amazingly well. I sometimes feel like I want to help her in some way because I think about how heart breaking it would be to lose my own husband, but each time I talk with her, it’s my faith that is strengthened and I walk away simply energized by her strength and her faith in God.
But, my question to you would be why is it that you choose ~Christianity~ as the religious preference in which you place your faith. Is it because you were brought up in that faith, and if so what about a Muslim or a Jew who was brought up in their particular faith? Are all religions equal and simply a way in which we try to understand our creator? Major religions differ considerably, so it would stand to reason that there can only be one correct option or they are all wrong. Personally, I believe that for something as important as considering the creator of the universe, we should give ample consideration to all religious beliefs and discern whether there is one particular belief system which gives more supporting evidence for its claims.
Jeremy wrote:
Forthekids wrote:
"Obvious to most, there had to be a first cause to our existence. Hence, everything we explore in our world can be viewed through the lens of what this creator had in mind for us and in turn what our purpose is within it’s creation."
From what I gather, your viewpoint is based on the logical argument that God exists because "there had to be a first cause to our existence." Based on this currently unverifiable presupposition, you subsequently assume that we should find physical evidence of God’s creative action throughout the universe. I personally share your presupposition, but I think your assumption does not necessarily follow from it.
Why couldn’t God create a fully autonomous universe? Why couldn’t God, being a fully transcendent entity, work through the finite causes we call “natural” without interrupting or interfering in such a way that would be physically detectable to us? Maybe it was all set up this way in order to ensure that the beings created in God’s image would have genuine freedom. These are just a few alternative ideas you might want to consider.
Without even considering what the Bible, which supports the Christian ~faith~, says about God’s creation and observing His hand in the creative process, let’s just consider your thoughts regarding natural causes.
On the surface, your idea that God works through “natural” processes without “interrupting or interfering” is interesting. But, not only does this assure “genuine freedom”, it also eliminates the possibility of miracles outside of natural causes.
Your “alternative idea” would certainly not allow for miracles, a relationship with the creator through prayer, answers to prayer, and of course a risen Saviour would be out of the question. All of these things require supernatural occurrences in which the creator allows miraculous things to occur in our natural world. Traditional Christianity is based on Christ’s death and resurrection and our Creator’s plan to have a relationship with us. Peter, Paul, the apostles and countless numbers of early Christians died for these beliefs. Many of the apostles had eye witness accounts to base their beliefs upon.
Also, within this “alternative idea”, Jesus’ words to Thomas would not apply to blind faith or anything else for that matter because if one does not believe that God works in ways that are outside of nature, then Jesus’ words to Thomas were nonsensical. For a person who does not believe that the Creator of the Universe can step in and act, this story could have nothing to do with the nail imprints that Thomas was seeking as evidence of Christ‘s resurrection from death as this would clearly be a supernatural occurrence.
On the other hand, if one examines the evidence that supports scriptural truth, one can come to have faith that the death and resurrection of Christ and other biblical prophecies were fulfilled through God’s guidance in ways that conflict with natural causes as we know them. In that case, miracles happen and that leaves the door wide open to allow God to create the world in whatever way He chose to do it - naturally/supernaturally/whatever. God is beyond our understanding and can act in whatever way he deems necessary.
This is why it is important for a Christian to consider supporting evidence for the validity of scriptural truth. I’ve yet to ever hear a theistic evolutionist speak of Christian apologetics, in fact they usually reject the idea upfront. They dismiss these arguments that support the accuracy of scripture and assume that those who study these issues do not have faith and therefore need evidence.
But, what the TE has done is left our children with no option other than blind faith in a creator. Why would one choose faith in the God of Christianity when miracles and so much of biblical history is assumed by some people to be merely ancient story telling with some type of deeper meaning to the listener? Some form of deism or panentheism seems to me to be the only option in regard to a faith in this type of god.
As far as blind faith is concerned, I can have ~faith~ and ~strong feelings~ about many things, that doesn’t mean that they are correct. It also stands to reason that if there is evidence to be found for God’s word being true, it should certainly be analyzed and shared with others. There may be a poor soul out there who has strong feelings that the creator sent a non-detectible message through the glass of milk that he was drinking from that our Creator lives in a bubble in the outer depths of the universe, yet without lines of evidence to support this revelation, it would be rather useless to conform to this individual’s faith in the bubble god.
I’ve watched these “Christians” of “blind faith” stand up with atheists and support everything the atheist has to say without blinking an eye. Do they not realize that they are playing right into the atheist’s hands?
Blind faith is worthless.
[Jeremy, when I put quotation marks around the word "Christian", I am ~not~ referring to you. My personal belief at this point is that you lie somewhere in the middle of these differences in opinion, and I’m still not quite sure exactly where you stand on many of these issues. From what I understand you do believe in miracles and Christ’s death and resurrection. If that is true, then you are a Christian in the traditional sense, IMO.]
Jeremy wrote:
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think it is fine for you to view the world through your chosen lens. However, I don't think it is right for you to try to prescribe "corrective lenses" for everyone else. It seems to me that you want students to see the world through the "lens of what this creator had in mind for us and in turn what our purpose is within it’s creation." That’s what you seem to be suggesting when you say that we are teaching science "dogmatically" unless we also present ID.
No, I am not saying that everyone must prescribe to my viewpoint, and I do not feel that students in the public school system must consider the world through the “lens of what this creator had in mind for us...”. What I am saying is that there are many scientists and people in the general public who do consider intelligent design as a legitimate scientific inference, and we should not be singled out and waved off as being unscientific.
I am also saying that TE’s and atheists feel that their religious/non-religious “faith” is being tampered with as well as their faith in what ~they feel~ man has without a doubt concluded as being true within the field of science.
I am also suggesting that Intelligent Design is the best inference that we have in regard to origins. The scientific community has never had a problem putting forth ideas like primordial soup or Miller-Urey which by today’s standards are quite lame. ID offers far more scientific support than either of those theories.
ID is the best science has to offer in regard to origins and until Dawkins, Harvard University or whoever comes up with a better option, ID should be considered.
David Lui from Harvard University seems quite certain that we will find our answers as to the origins of life and it will require no divine intervention:
''We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. "But my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
But, until that time comes, we cannot assume that natural causes give conclusive support for our origins.
I think perhaps that is your fear - that science will eventually eliminate the need for a creator. That is where you believe your faith alone is vital to your belief system.
While I heartily support Harvard’s endeavor, my faith lies in the truth of scripture and I have faith that the divine creator exists and there is no getting away from that fact.
But, as you can see from that article, ID has pushed science to new levels and there will be even greater strides in trying to find a way to explain our origins. This is awesome in my opinion. There will always be those who believe that there is a designer, there will always be those who believe that natural causes explain everything in our world, and there will always be those who teeter in the middle not quite willing to take a stand one way or the other. Nevertheless, our current best scientific theories for origins should be laid out for our students to consider, and ID is certainly in that category. And, it is entirely possible to consider ID without letting personal religious views get in the way. The theory of Intelligent Design has nothing to do with my belief that Christ died for my sins and will one day return for me and all believers.
Jeremy wrote:
Think about your own situation for a moment. You have described yourself as a nominally-religious Christian prior to your in-depth investigation of the Bible. When you eventually came to the conclusion that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, you re-examined your prior acceptance of evolution because of its apparent conflict with the Biblical narrative. I think you would probably admit that you did not come to this conclusion solely through careful examination of the scientific evidence.
It was your religious presuppositions that led you through the process by which you eventually concluded that significant portions of the consensus scientific understandings were false. In contrast, I think we should let science advance on its own, without being encumbered by our religious misgivings.
No, actually what made me reconsider both science and religion was scientific evidence that I was never allowed to consider in school. If you remember, I stated that the initial spark that started this journey for me was my kids and their dinosaur years and friends offering me tapes and books with alternative scientific theories that are not allowed in the public schools.
I had been taught in the public school that there was only one way in which our world evolved and that was presented to me as fact. I honestly felt at the time that science was taking on more than could actually be empirically detectible, but I really didn’t give it much more thought than that. I took them at their word while having absolutely no idea at the time that there were scientists who are able to give clear evidence that some of these “factual” theories are quite questionable.
When I was presented with alternative theories, it was like opening up the door to ideas that made more sense and in turn I started considering biblical truth more closely. At that point, I found both science and theology so compelling that I couldn’t stop exploring both at length. It wasn’t until quite some time later that I discovered that the scientific community is composed of primarily scientists who hold atheistic beliefs and that there are actually scientific establishments that have been raised up primarily to stop any scientific thought unless it conforms with the mainstream “scientific community“.
And, as far as letting science advance on it’s own and following the evidence where it leads, it is a fact that many scientists have stated that they are out to stop religion and some have gone as far as saying that is why they do what they do. ~Everyone~ comes to the table with prior beliefs and commitments. That is not a fact that is exclusively held by IDists. You are aware that even Dawkins sees design in nature, but his prior commitment to naturalism will not allow for him to follow that particular line of evidence.
Jeremy wrote:
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that empirical evidence of God's existence is not as self-evident to non-believers as it is to you. I think that’s a fair assumption.
Which of our two viewpoints do you think is more likely to encourage non-believers to have faith?
Well, actually I’ve talked to quite a few atheists about this and they’ve all stated that they would ~not~ believe in a god by faith alone. That is why they follow science in the first place - they need evidence. The problem is that the atheistic “scientific community” has only allowed for one line of evidence to be considered and that is why we have seen the number of atheists grow considerably. Atheists also love the fact that some Christians feel the need to “update” interpretations of the Bible (as you yourself have stated). They know that this will quickly eliminate the truth of scripture and destroy the deity of Christ. They also realize that these progressive interpretations will lead right straight toward atheism. Eugenie Scott is a pro at this approach.
Jeremy wrote:
I certainly don’t think God is "tricking us at every turn" or that God created a world that is in opposition to the Bible. I just think that the evidence we have uncovered using science suggests that some interpretations of the Bible are in need of updating.
And, just how far will this “updating” go? If you plan on going too far, Jeremy, Christianity will eventually mean nothing. You might as well start a new religion based on blind faith in a god of natural causes. Sounds like a form of panentheism to me.
Theistic evolutionists are far to awestruck with man's current scientific inferences and speculation. It seems to me that something this important would encourage a person to consider Christian apologetics before tossing their traditional Christian faith out the closest window in exchange for a deistic or panentheistic belief system that coincides with current scientific consensus.
Your questions regarding what should be taught in the classroom in regard to ID will have to come in another post as this one is far too long already.
Thanks again for your comments. I have a lot of respect for you and your approach in discussing these issues.
[A few words in this post have been changed for further clarification.]
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Response to a Comment
I like Jeremy’s comments. They really make me think and I always look forward to considering what he has to say (btw, he‘s one heck of a singer as well).
His latest comment was particularly interesting and my response is too long to put in the comment section, so here we go...
Jeremy writes:
I don’t “look to science to validate my faith”. For me, God comes first...“thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
Obvious to most, there had to be a first cause to our existence. Hence, everything we explore in our world can be viewed through the lens of what this creator had in mind for us and in turn what our purpose is within it’s creation.
Blind faith opens the door to anything. Blind faith will set a person square in the hands of an atheist agenda. Scientists who oppose those who believe there was a designer love the concept of “faith“.
From the Wired article I mentioned in a previous post:
This is very true, Jeremy. Theist evolutionists are merely opening up the door to atheism. They are quite willing to allow for a complete “distinction between science and faith as two separate ways of understanding our world“. When science and theology converge or butt heads, theistic evolutionists will side with science every time. At that point they will always fall back on the idea that science and faith are two separate issues. This is nonsensical in my opinion.
I’ve read Ken Miller and Francis Collins' books, and they stand firmly with the consensus of the ~scientific community~ on every matter. Yet, they state that whereas many scientists reject a creator, they hold fast to their faith in God.
Why?
That’s the question I keep waiting for them to answer. Maybe some day they will write a book that gives us detail and insight as to ~why~ they have faith in God, and why choose Christianity in particular? From where I’m standing, they laud scientists who clearly reject God and seem to state that science trumps any belief in scripture or any other theological arguments.
If theistic evolutionists want us to embrace their views that science and faith are “two separate ways of understanding the world”, they will have to give us a better understanding of how this works and why they believe in God if those in the scientific world (who’s science they agree with) reject a Designer when discussions of origins converge between theology and science.
You wrote:
Here is where you are still misunderstanding me. Science cannot become the “object of my faith” or give the “power to establish ultimate truth”. Science is a tool in which to uncover the inner workings of the universe God created.
When discussing origins, both science and religious beliefs rely on “faith”. For instance, Dawkins states that science ~will~ find answers to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, and he believes those answer are just around the corner. This type of supposition if referred to as ~faith~. Faith in science. Faith is not only found in theological suppositions, but in scientific ones as well.
You wrote:
So real faith is to believe in something that has been proven to be wrong by scientific evidence? In other words, the creator has set up a world in which His Word is in opposition to the world He created in order for us to have to rely strictly on faith in Him. How would one choose who or what to believe in terms of a Creator if the creator is tricking us at every turn? Why consider any particular religious belief at all? I would think that in this light, the only choice would be a form of deism.
After considering the insight which the Bible provides, I can no longer support the notion of some vague form of deism.
Personally, I believe that scripture provides tremendous insight into our creation and the creator. There are themes and threads that run throughout that cannot be reconciled as mere thoughts of man.
But, in the end I, like all people of various religious beliefs or non-beliefs, find that our faith is a variable in which we come to our conclusions about the world. I choose to put my faith in God and His Word. I don’t believe that “science alone has the power to establish ultimate truth“. I believe that men use a tool which they refer to as science in which they explore our surroundings which were established by the ultimate Designer.
There cannot be “two separate ways to view the world”. There can be only ~one way~ in which our universe was brought into existence. There cannot be two separate ways in which to view the world, because that clearly makes one of those ways incorrect.
One can make a choice between the two or consider the incredible way in which they overlap and support one another. The choice lies within each person as to where they are going to place their faith. And, it is a choice that everyone should be allowed to make based on all available evidence. I have no intention of ever insisting that Dawkins form of faith be relinquished from scientific thought, yet on the other hand I believe that IDists should have their clearly ~scientific~ inferences shared with students as well. Lay it all out on the table, don't teach science dogmatically.
His latest comment was particularly interesting and my response is too long to put in the comment section, so here we go...
Jeremy writes:
Forthekids wrote:I’m glad you brought this up, Jeremy. This is where our views differ considerably, and it’s still a bit unclear as to whether you completely understand my position.
"ID is something that all people of faith should embrace...I simply cannot understand why people of faith are so adamant to reject it".
Well, here is one of several reasons why I reject ID:
It is clear that many ID supporters are looking to science to validate their personal faith in God. In my view, this desire for scientific validation unnecessarily blurs the distinction between science and faith as two separate ways of understanding our world. Even worse, it encourages the subordination of faith to science because it makes science the ultimate authority in establishing the validity of faith.
I don’t “look to science to validate my faith”. For me, God comes first...“thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
Obvious to most, there had to be a first cause to our existence. Hence, everything we explore in our world can be viewed through the lens of what this creator had in mind for us and in turn what our purpose is within it’s creation.
Blind faith opens the door to anything. Blind faith will set a person square in the hands of an atheist agenda. Scientists who oppose those who believe there was a designer love the concept of “faith“.
From the Wired article I mentioned in a previous post:
The most active defender of faith among scientists right now is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In defiance of the title, Collins never attempts to show that science offers evidence for belief. Rather, he argues only that nothing in science prohibits belief. Unsolved problems in diverse fields, along with a skepticism about knowledge in general, are used to demonstrate that a deity might not be impossible. The problem with this, for defenders of faith, is that they've implicitly accepted science as the arbiter of what is real. This leaves the atheists with the upper hand.[my emphasis]
This is very true, Jeremy. Theist evolutionists are merely opening up the door to atheism. They are quite willing to allow for a complete “distinction between science and faith as two separate ways of understanding our world“. When science and theology converge or butt heads, theistic evolutionists will side with science every time. At that point they will always fall back on the idea that science and faith are two separate issues. This is nonsensical in my opinion.
I’ve read Ken Miller and Francis Collins' books, and they stand firmly with the consensus of the ~scientific community~ on every matter. Yet, they state that whereas many scientists reject a creator, they hold fast to their faith in God.
Why?
That’s the question I keep waiting for them to answer. Maybe some day they will write a book that gives us detail and insight as to ~why~ they have faith in God, and why choose Christianity in particular? From where I’m standing, they laud scientists who clearly reject God and seem to state that science trumps any belief in scripture or any other theological arguments.
If theistic evolutionists want us to embrace their views that science and faith are “two separate ways of understanding the world”, they will have to give us a better understanding of how this works and why they believe in God if those in the scientific world (who’s science they agree with) reject a Designer when discussions of origins converge between theology and science.
You wrote:
I know that you think your faith can be scientifically justified, but basing one's faith on "scientific" arguments only makes science, instead of God, the object of your faith. It essentially leads to a form of scientism, the belief that science alone has the power to establish ultimate truth. In my opinion, this is dangerous for both science and faith.
Here is where you are still misunderstanding me. Science cannot become the “object of my faith” or give the “power to establish ultimate truth”. Science is a tool in which to uncover the inner workings of the universe God created.
When discussing origins, both science and religious beliefs rely on “faith”. For instance, Dawkins states that science ~will~ find answers to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, and he believes those answer are just around the corner. This type of supposition if referred to as ~faith~. Faith in science. Faith is not only found in theological suppositions, but in scientific ones as well.
You wrote:
Faith in God requires people to have hope, even in the face of evidence that might leave others hopeless. To truly be a "person of faith" requires courage in the face of doubt, not certitude.
So real faith is to believe in something that has been proven to be wrong by scientific evidence? In other words, the creator has set up a world in which His Word is in opposition to the world He created in order for us to have to rely strictly on faith in Him. How would one choose who or what to believe in terms of a Creator if the creator is tricking us at every turn? Why consider any particular religious belief at all? I would think that in this light, the only choice would be a form of deism.
After considering the insight which the Bible provides, I can no longer support the notion of some vague form of deism.
Personally, I believe that scripture provides tremendous insight into our creation and the creator. There are themes and threads that run throughout that cannot be reconciled as mere thoughts of man.
But, in the end I, like all people of various religious beliefs or non-beliefs, find that our faith is a variable in which we come to our conclusions about the world. I choose to put my faith in God and His Word. I don’t believe that “science alone has the power to establish ultimate truth“. I believe that men use a tool which they refer to as science in which they explore our surroundings which were established by the ultimate Designer.
There cannot be “two separate ways to view the world”. There can be only ~one way~ in which our universe was brought into existence. There cannot be two separate ways in which to view the world, because that clearly makes one of those ways incorrect.
One can make a choice between the two or consider the incredible way in which they overlap and support one another. The choice lies within each person as to where they are going to place their faith. And, it is a choice that everyone should be allowed to make based on all available evidence. I have no intention of ever insisting that Dawkins form of faith be relinquished from scientific thought, yet on the other hand I believe that IDists should have their clearly ~scientific~ inferences shared with students as well. Lay it all out on the table, don't teach science dogmatically.
Mike Hall and PZ Myer
Okay....wow....this is an interesting article. I remember reading PZ Myer's screed about Mike Adams lecturing at the University of Minnesota. Myer's choice of adjectives are always so colorful and they really say something about the man uttering them, and highlight his intolerance of opinions in opposition of his own.
Anyway, I like Mike’s ending comment:
Anyway, I like Mike’s ending comment:
But it is a shame that Dr. Myer lacked the courage to ask me a single question. I certainly had a couple to ask of him. And I’ll bet the audience would have liked to hear him explain how an evolutionist who deems the universe to be accidental can be so full of moral superiority. Or perhaps how the accidental moralist can be an atheist and yet so angry at God.
It takes courage for a man to admit that he is sometimes afraid. But that courage is not a gift of random mutation. It is a gift from a God who loves even the most hardened atheist.[my emphasis]
HAPPY HALLOWEEN
I'm feeling particularly witchy today, so perhaps I'll spend a little extra time peering into my witches brew in order to seek some answers for Jeremy's latest comments. 
Stay tuned...
Stay tuned...
Monday, October 30, 2006
Too many philosophers
I stumbled across this link today, and contemplated how many times I’ve heard the same type of philosophical arguments posed to discredit the reality that there is a supreme being which created our very existence.
These type of philosophical arguments are apparently considered “sophisticated” and tend to be postulated by those who are “enlightened” or have acquired an impressive “intellectual” ability to understand these matters. Apparently this acquired intellect surpasses those of us who are still apparently archaic in our approach in questioning whether there is a supernatural force which has designed the universe in a purposeful manner.
My approach is to let these philosophers argue themselves in circles while I consider the evidence for and against the accuracy of scripture and then compare that with religious history and holy books from other religions. Simple, perhaps, but I recognize that truth does exist and there can only be one “right” answer as to how we arrived at where we are today. Either there is a designer of the cosmos or there is not. We cannot know who or what the designer is by considering scientific arguments so we must consider historical accounts and discern which, if any, religious avenues lead down the correct path to who or what designed our universe.
I’ve heard some people say they have no want to search for evidence for something they feel is a faith driven belief. Well, they are missing out on a fascinating journey.
From the link:
Hmmm...
Atheists always attest to their strong reasoning skills, but is it truly reasonable to believe that something originated from nothing?
Personally, I think it’s all quite simple. Either someone created something out of nothing, or no one created something out of nothing. What’s that song? “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could“. To attain something from nothing is simply not a reasonable deduction.
I think for many non-believers, their non-belief stems from their inability to deal with a God who allows pain and suffering. The other reason is due to what the author of the post linked above states:
But, the bottom line for me is this... I have no problem with the Dawkins and Harris’ of the world proselytizing in the public square. But, their skepticism is based on faith, not deductive reasoning. We should not have to subject our students to only one view of origins in the science classroom. ID is a viable inference and should be acknowledged as such. I’m convinced the only reason ID is not accepted is due to unwarranted fear of separation of church and state issues.
So, yeah, I’ll remain quite content in my “unsophisticated” world, rather than becoming so “enlightened” that my ability to reason is no longer intact.
These type of philosophical arguments are apparently considered “sophisticated” and tend to be postulated by those who are “enlightened” or have acquired an impressive “intellectual” ability to understand these matters. Apparently this acquired intellect surpasses those of us who are still apparently archaic in our approach in questioning whether there is a supernatural force which has designed the universe in a purposeful manner.
My approach is to let these philosophers argue themselves in circles while I consider the evidence for and against the accuracy of scripture and then compare that with religious history and holy books from other religions. Simple, perhaps, but I recognize that truth does exist and there can only be one “right” answer as to how we arrived at where we are today. Either there is a designer of the cosmos or there is not. We cannot know who or what the designer is by considering scientific arguments so we must consider historical accounts and discern which, if any, religious avenues lead down the correct path to who or what designed our universe.
I’ve heard some people say they have no want to search for evidence for something they feel is a faith driven belief. Well, they are missing out on a fascinating journey.
From the link:
Special pleading that the universe is essentially different from its constituents, and (by nature of its unique status as all that there is to the physical world) that it could not have either (1) just existed forever, nor (2) come spontaneously into existence all by itself, is groundless. The only sensible response such skepticism is “Why not?” It’s certainly true that we don’t yet know whether the universe is eternal or whether it had a beginning, and we certainly don’t understand the details of its origin. But there is absolutely no obstacle to our eventually figuring those things out, given what we already understand about physics. General relativity asserts that spacetime itself is dynamical; it can change with time, and potentially even be created from nothing, in a way that is fundamentally different from the Newtonian conception (much less the Aristotelian). And quantum mechanics describes the universe in terms of a wavefunction that assigns amplitudes to any of an infinite number of possibilities, including — crucially — spontaneous transitions, unforced by any cause. We don’t yet know how to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, but someday we will — physicists are working on the problem every day. [my emphasis]“The only sensible response to such skepticism is “Why not?””
Hmmm...
Atheists always attest to their strong reasoning skills, but is it truly reasonable to believe that something originated from nothing?
Personally, I think it’s all quite simple. Either someone created something out of nothing, or no one created something out of nothing. What’s that song? “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could“. To attain something from nothing is simply not a reasonable deduction.
I think for many non-believers, their non-belief stems from their inability to deal with a God who allows pain and suffering. The other reason is due to what the author of the post linked above states:
And once you start attributing to God the possibility of being interested in some way about the world and the people in it, you open the door to all of the nonsensical rules and regulations governing real human behavior that tend to accompany any particular manifestation of religious belief, from criminalizing abortion to hiding women’s faces to closing down the liquor stores on Sunday.It’s difficult for some to think about having to answer to their creator. Live and let live is their motto and for some reason they believe that living a godly life will cramp their style. I’ve found that to be a false assumption. I lived ~my way~ long enough to know that following His way is far more rewarding.
But, the bottom line for me is this... I have no problem with the Dawkins and Harris’ of the world proselytizing in the public square. But, their skepticism is based on faith, not deductive reasoning. We should not have to subject our students to only one view of origins in the science classroom. ID is a viable inference and should be acknowledged as such. I’m convinced the only reason ID is not accepted is due to unwarranted fear of separation of church and state issues.
So, yeah, I’ll remain quite content in my “unsophisticated” world, rather than becoming so “enlightened” that my ability to reason is no longer intact.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Another Atheist Evangelist
Sam Harris is the topic of a Washington Post article. Like Richard Dawkins, Harris is definitely an atheist evangelist. His two latest books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation have landed on the best sellers list. The thing that really shocks me about these two individuals is that they display the bigotry, hatred and intolerance that they seem to blame religious communities for. Do they really believe that if we were to eliminate belief in God, that war and hatred would cease? They seem to be lacking logic. Are they aware that there are gang fights happening all over the nation on a daily basis which the majority of time have nothing to do with religion whatsoever?
From the article:
I often wonder just what it is that makes people so determined to reject something so solidly supported by evidence before giving it thorough consideration. Religious belief is not something that one must accept on blind faith, and I believe that questions about who or what our creator is are the most important questions a person can ever ask. Why don’t people take it more seriously and examine the evidence for various faiths? Is there one that stands out as having more supporting evidence?
This gets back to the question of Intelligent Design. Do we let the Dawkins/Harris crowd run over our students with their misguided and ill informed agenda to eliminate religion altogether, or do we stand our ground and allow our students the chance to consider a Designer? ID is something that all people of faith should embrace. The design inference is by far the best inference we have when considering human origins. I simply cannot understand why people of faith are so adamant to reject it.
From the article:
Harris has grossly oversimplified scripture, they say. He has drawn far-reaching conclusions based on the beliefs of radicals. As bad, his stand against organized religion is so unconditional that it's akin to the intolerance he claims he is fighting. If there is such a thing as a secular fundamentalist, they contend, Harris is it. Even some who agree with his conclusions about the dangers of fanaticism find his argument ham-handed.Exactly. I have to wonder what his intention is when he writes and says the things he does. Obviously, he wants everyone to turn away from God, but what then? Three-quarters of all Americans believe the Bible is God’s word, and religious groups have done a tremendous amount of good for people throughout the world. I have to wonder if Sam is living in denial that the word of God can provide extreme comfort to those who accept the truth of scripture?
...not only has Harris picked a fight with those who could be on his side, but his solution -- let's all ditch God -- is laughable given the role that religion plays in so many lives. Others say that he has taken these "Old Books" at their literal word, instead of studying the way that the faithful actually engage the scriptures. Put more simply, he doesn't know what he's talking about.I’d certainly agree with that. I watch Dawkins and Harris get agitated with people who believe in God and biblical truth. They pull verse after verse from the Bible out of context and with no regard to the meaning of the passages or to the time they were written within the biblical narrative and what they mean to the book as a whole. It shocks me that people follow guys like this.
I often wonder just what it is that makes people so determined to reject something so solidly supported by evidence before giving it thorough consideration. Religious belief is not something that one must accept on blind faith, and I believe that questions about who or what our creator is are the most important questions a person can ever ask. Why don’t people take it more seriously and examine the evidence for various faiths? Is there one that stands out as having more supporting evidence?
"Religion doesn't make people bigots," says Reza Aslan, author of "No God but God," a history of Islam. "People are bigots and they use religion to justify their ideology."Amen to that, and some atheists I know are every bit as bigoted as they claim people of religion are.
"I'm an agnostic," he says, after getting an autograph, "but I found what Harris said kind of juvenile. By discounting all religion the way he does, that's basically like saying, 'All of you are idiots.' I feel like he ought to extend some kind of olive branch. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about."That is another thing that hurts these very outspoken atheists. They seem to think that even though they are in the minority, everyone around them who believes in God is simply ignorant or delusional. I’m afraid that is highly improbable.
This gets back to the question of Intelligent Design. Do we let the Dawkins/Harris crowd run over our students with their misguided and ill informed agenda to eliminate religion altogether, or do we stand our ground and allow our students the chance to consider a Designer? ID is something that all people of faith should embrace. The design inference is by far the best inference we have when considering human origins. I simply cannot understand why people of faith are so adamant to reject it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)