It's worth pondering.
As to the effect of ID on original sin, there is one verse that comes to mind when I do my pondering.
Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
ID fails dismally if there is no death before Adam. Several hundred million years of nothing dying would be a problem. 
This is one of the two toes I still have in the YEC camp. If they can mathematically make some of their white hole ideas or ideas about changing of the speed of light work, then I don't have to wonder how death entered the world before sin.
For now, to make the thing work, I have to assume that the world was being evolved by God over a few billion years, then He created Eden from nothing and put Adam there. Adam was very different from the hominids that we are finding these days. He was, in fact, smarter, better looking, and more robust than any of us. His mission was to go out and extend the beauty of Eden to all the world. Of course, things didn't quite go that way.
Just thinking. Thanks for the post and thoughts.
David,
You wrote:
"The answer: Christians who are scientists should do science the same way as their atheistic colleagues. They should then turn to the churches, and to the youth groups, and to seminars, and to debates, and to the high-school and college clubs, and to unbelievers—and discuss how the amazing discoveries of science point to a creator God whose name is Jesus Christ."
Could you list the amazing discoveries of science that currently validate the Bible as inerrant? I assume that is what you're implying; that there currently exist scientific discoveries that, without question, prove that Jesus is the Son of God and that every word in the Bible is a historical fact. The Birth narratives, the Resurrection, the dead people rising, etc. Am I understanding your statement correctly?
JES,
You are not understanding correctly.
The bible does not say much about science, but the one case that I am aware of in which it opposed mainstream science (including Einstein, Hoyle, Eddington, ...) was when the bible said, with no ambiguity, that our universe had a beginning, while these (and other scientists) said it didn't. We know now, thanks to the evidence for the Big Bang, that the bible was right and they were wrong.
But what I meant was that science points to (but does not prove) a designed universe, of which the fine-tuning is the strongest example. So go back and evangelize using science as a way to show how miraculous it is that the universe even exists--some who listen will reach (or reaffirm) their conclusion that this is evidence for God. Others will not.
A friend of mine who is a space physicist and evangelical christian just started blogging at http://vince.webjig.com/. Thought you might be interested.
I'm a YEC, but I think Ken Ham should take care of the Genesis question at his seminars and not oppose ID. After all, I seem to recall ID books/DVDs for sale from his ministry, so he's benefitting from the ID movement.
naturalism (science) is not a threat to biblical Christianity
David, depending on what you meant, I think I disagree. Taken normally, naturalism holds to nothing supernatural, so by its very nature it's atheistic and not a synonym for science in the broadest sense.
If on the other hand, you mean that studying natural phenomena without referencing the supernatural is valid, I have no problem with that. Repeatable scientific experiments should give the same results to theists and atheists alike.
"What good is it if people believe in intelligence?" says Ham. "That's no different than atheism in that if it's not the God of the Bible, it's not Jesus Christ, its not salvation."
Absolutely right. If ID ever gets any scientific traction - and I think that's a pretty big "if" - then I can confidently predict that this will not lead to a more widespread acceptance of biblical Christianity. It is more likely to lead to a revival of Deism or of "lifeforce" thinking, which would be heralded by a plethora of popular science books giving the message, "The Bible claims that God is like this, but now science (bow, bow) has shown that God must really be like this".
In fact, aren't people like Paul Davies already coming out with stuff like this?
Finally, as for evolution's "threat" to biblical Christianity, I came across a great quote from Charles Krauthammer recently:
"How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?"
Man's got a point.
I wonder if Ham would use the same reasoning critisizing archeology. Since archeology cannot find everything found in the Bible, say the arc in the tabernacle. Does it mean archeology have no value in Christianity?
Same thing with ID, ID does not have a proof of God from scientific evidences, does it imply God does not exist by IDst?
Limng Tang
ID is not "from the Bible?" Well, neither is creationism.
Both are from Hell, so far as I can see, but it's funny to watch them feud over who's got the most scriptural error, as if either of them had anything right.
JES wrote:
Could you list the amazing discoveries of science that currently validate the Bible as inerrant?
As David points out your assumption is incorrect. ID isn't about proof, neither is science. Both are about evidence and theories that attempt to explain that evidence.
It is a common misconception in our Science worshipping culture to think that Science provides proof of anything. A short look at the history of Science should show anyone that Science is at best about discovering how the world is (gathering evidence). It can be fairly easily shown that the process of explaining that evidence (developing theories) is, in itself unscientific.
I find that most, not all, IDers understand this distinction at least on some level, and many hard core naturalists do not.
Randy I agree with you that David is a little ambiguous on his use of naturalism (science).
First, it is incorrect to equate naturalism with science. One does not necessarily need the other, much of the science that has been done and is done is not done by people with naturalistic views or assumptions.
Second there are two kinds of naturalistic viewpoints. Metaphysical naturalism, which makes a claim that there are no supernatural causes in our universe anywhere, ever. This philosophical viewpoint is a threat to Christianity.
There is also Methodological Naturalism, which is the idea that science cannot, ever, look for supernatural causdes, such things, if they exist are outside the domain of science. This view is no threat to Christianity per se, but I find few people hold this view seperate form the the Metaphysical one. Many Metaphysical naturalists will retreat to this view when the assumptions of Metaphysical naturalism are show to be flawed (they are).
Methodological Naturalism is, however, a threat to science as it seeks to elminiate science investigating the miraculous. Any reasonable definition of the miraculous also rules out any number of things science would like to investigate: like the big bang.
I find it is helpful in discussion of these things to actually tease out the particular meaning that is being used because there can be quite a lot of confusion when people use the three terms science, metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism interchangebly. They are not the same thing.
John H wrote:
In fact, aren't people like Paul Davies already coming out with stuff like this?
Yes he did. Your point is true, evidence fopr design will not bring people to saving knowledge of Jesus. If people still wish to persist in their sin they will find whatever excuses they need too.
However ID is not primarily (or even secondarily) a tool for evangelism. It is a metaphyisical explanantion of the facts of science. It is an attempt to explain why things are the way the seem to be, just as Metahpysical Naturalism is.
ID might be useful in some evangelistic enterprises, and it may also be useful for building up beleivers, but both of these are ancillary. ID is not about these things, they may be added benefits (or distracitons) to it.
Ed Darrell wrote:
"ID is not "from the Bible?" Well, neither is creationism."
That is debateable. Creationism is most certainly dreived from the bible directly. ID is derived from creation (not creationism, but the world we see).
"Both are from Hell, so far as I can see, but it's funny to watch them feud over who's got the most scriptural error, as if either of them had anything right."
This comment adds little to the debate. I could comment on how I find it funny to see hardline materialists arguing over different interpreations of the fossil record as if either of them hae got anything right. But what does that add to the debate.
Nothing.
Matt: *is* ID only a metaphysical explanation superimposed on science? That sounds to me like a retreat from the core claim of ID: that design can be inferred from scientific observations, that it belongs to the realm of science rather than theology/philosophy.
Matt: *is* ID only a metaphysical explanation superimposed on science? That sounds to me like a retreat from the core claim of ID: that design can be inferred from scientific observations, that it belongs to the realm of science rather than theology/philosophy.
Matt,
You wrote:
"As David points out your assumption is incorrect. ID isn't about proof, neither is science. Both are about evidence and theories that attempt to explain that evidence."
Yes, I understand this, my original question was trying to challenge David's assertion:
"They should then turn to the churches, and to the youth groups, and to seminars, and to debates, and to the high-school and college clubs, and to unbelievers—and discuss how the amazing discoveries of science point to a creator God whose name is Jesus Christ."
Maybe my sarcasm was missed. I contend that there are no amazing discoveries that point to a creator God and especially any that would confirm that Jesus is God. I realize that you and David have drunk the kool-aid but for us non-believers I was asking for an example of one of these amazing discoveries.
JES,
You, like all humanists, have assumed human autonomy before you have proven it. You have assumed that because *you* are unconvinced means that the data doesn't amount to any proof for God. David and I are both Reformed Christians which means that we aren't phased in the least when an unbeliever is unconvinced in spite of the overwhelming evidence. The existence of God is clearly seen, but you have become darkened in your understanding and exchanged the truth of God for a lie. You will discount all evidence (no matter how clear and obvious) and the only way that you will be converted is if you are convicted of your sin and drawn by the Father to faith in the resurrected Christ.
I am not trying to be mean or condescending, just straight forward.
Saint and Sinner (Romans 3:10-22)
Saint and Sinner,
JES has assumed human autonomy before proving it? Um, I'm sorry, but the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. The claim in this instance would be, "God exists." Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you, not on JES.
Saint and Sinner,
I appreciate your candor and I realize how important this is to you but do you not see the logical flaws in your arguments? You are asking me to look at a tree or a human eye and say there, that proves that the God of the Bible exists, that there was a virgin birth and a resurrection and there is an eternal punishment of a burning lake of fire if you don’t believe what I believe. I guarantee that your faith did not come from looking at a tree. You already believed and now you look at a tree and see God. Can I ask if you are a YEC or an IDist? And what is the single, strongest, scientific evidence you believe confirms everything written in the Bible? I sincerely want to know what “clear and obvious evidence” there is that will convert me into a Christian. That is what you’re implying, correct?
JES and GCT,
GCT: You said, “Um, I'm sorry, but the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the positive claim. The claim in this instance would be, "God exists." Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you, not on JES.”
That was not my point. I was never trying to put the burden of proof on JES. My point was that plenty of “evidence” has already been provided, but rather, you have, in the words of Paul, “repressed the truth”. No matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how compelling, you will always say that the proof is not proof at all. I say that you (and all like-minded individuals) have assumed human autonomy before having proven it because you say that proof for God isn’t proof at all just because it hasn’t convinced you. More on that below.
JES: You said, “You are asking me to look at a tree or a human eye and say there, that proves that the God of the Bible exists, that there was a virgin birth and a resurrection and there is an eternal punishment of a burning lake of fire if you don’t believe what I believe.”
I may have misunderstood your original argument against David’s post. You are correct when you say that biological organisms can never prove the truthfulness of the Christian faith. No amount of finite evidences can ever prove the existence of an infinite God. When you said that there are no evidences that “point to a creator God”, I took you to mean any such hypothetical Being(/being/beings). [BTW: The whole “burning lake of fire if you don’t believe what I believe” thing is a bit of a straw-man. People are sentenced to eternal conscious punishment (not necessarily an actual fiery lake) because of their continuous sin and eternal hatred of God. But let us get back on topic.]
You said, “I guarantee that your faith did not come from looking at a tree. You already believed and now you look at a tree and see God.”
That is correct. With that admission, I must reciprocate. You already disbelieved and now you look at a tree and see random chance processes that occurred over billions of years (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you”).
It is as Martin Luther once said: either man is a slave of God or a slave of the devil. Our beliefs and outlooks are (as I would argue) preconditioned by our spiritual state. As I said above in response to GCT, no matter what is presented, you will disregard it. Let me give you a few examples:
After Jesus fed 5,000 people with a few pieces of bread and two fish, a few of the religious leaders wanted Him to show them a miraculous sign to prove that He was the Messiah. The fact that He had just fed 5,000 with just enough food to feed two or three didn’t even register on their radar. [BTW: I didn’t bring this up to argue whether this actually happened, just to show you where I’m coming from.]
This example might be better. When Fred Hoyle calculated the chance that the spontaneous generation of life would occur, the number was one chance in ten to the 40,000 power. Now, whether his calculation was right or not can be debated. It is the conclusion he made of his work that is astounding. Rather than believing that some supernatural Being(/being/beings) had something to do with it, he posited that space-aliens made a waste dump on earth a few billion years ago. Obviously, the problem of infinite regression was never thought of, or rather, he never wanted to think of it.
You said, “And what is the single, strongest, scientific evidence you believe confirms everything written in the Bible? I sincerely want to know what “clear and obvious evidence” there is that will convert me into a Christian.”
My point is that there is no evidence (of any kind) that will convince you on its own. It is not that the evidence is bad, but rather, I assert that you have blinders over your eyes that prevent you from seeing it. You assert that you are an autonomous human being, and if the evidence doesn’t convince you, then the evidence isn’t evidence at all. I assert (and I’m not trying to be a jerk) that you are a slave. You will only see what your spiritual nature allows you to see, and the only way that your bonds will be broken is by a supernatural act of God (i.e. what modern Christians call being “born again”). “…though I was blind, now I see.” (John 9:25)
The greatest slavery that exists is when the man doesn’t even know that he is a slave.
Rather than asserting that and leaving it at a standstill, I can back up my assertion with an argument (though non-scientific) if you are willing to dialogue further.
Saint and Sinner (John 9:25)
Saint and Sinner,
I don't look at a tree and see random processes. I look at a tree and see a tree. I see no need to go beyond that to make wild guesses about gods and such, which is exactly what you are doing here. There is no evidence that proves god. Simply because I refuse to engage in circular reasoning doesn't mean that I am in the wrong, nor does it mean that I must prove my position. Circular reasoning also does not count as proof towards your position. It's fallacious thinking, nothing more, nothing less.
Also, I'd like to know how I can be a slave when I don't subjugate myself to a master, like those who follow "god's will" do?
Also, if no evidence will convince me, and it takes a supernatural act, then why has god not done that?
But hey, if you can back up your assertions, by all means go ahead. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not on the one who disbelieves your claims.
Saint and Sinner,
The reason for my original post was that I believed that David had made a poor assertion and I wanted to call him out on that. I think you now agree with me on this point.
As for my unbelief, I absolutely do have blinders on when it comes to the supernatural. I contend that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let me give you an example; let’s say that you and I are going to meet for lunch. I show-up 45 minutes late and you ask what happened. If I tell you that I had a flat tire and my cell phone battery died (so I couldn’t call) you would believe me without much questioning. Flat tires and dead cell phones happen all the time. But if I said that an alien spaceship landed in the path of my car and aliens forced me on to their ship for some routine experiments, how likely are you to believe my story? So when I look around (especially at Christians) and I see no examples of supernatural events happening on a regular basis, I think I’m within my right to question the claims of Christians.
As for the science piece; half of all Christians believe a YEC view, meaning a universe that is less than 10,000 yrs old, a global flood, dinosaurs and men cohabitation, etc. Do you seriously believe I have blinders on to the ‘evidence’ because I believe that the science doesn’t back up those claims? This is why I asked if you were a YEC or not. If you are, I have to question exactly who has the blinders on and if you aren’t I have to question your integrity for supporting those that do believe in a young earth.
GCT,
You said, “I don't look at a tree and see random processes. I look at a tree and see a tree. I see no need to go beyond that to make wild guesses about gods and such, which is exactly what you are doing here.”
Whether or not you are willing to recognize it, the fact that you don’t see that tree and instinctively glorify its creator is preconditioned due to your spiritual state.
You said, “Simply because I refuse to engage in circular reasoning doesn't mean that I am in the wrong, nor does it mean that I must prove my position. Circular reasoning also does not count as proof towards your position. It's fallacious thinking, nothing more, nothing less.”
I’m sorry, but I believe that you misunderstood me. I was never claiming that it was up to you to prove a universal negative. Nor was I trying to make a case for theism. I was only trying to tell you what I believe. You (and JES) have made a big deal about how you are unconvinced of these scientific “proofs” for God, and thus, you infer that there are no proofs at all (because of your state of being unconvinced). If the theism of the Scriptures is true, however, your unbelief is due to your unregenerate spiritual state rather than a supposed objective weighing of the facts. This is why I accused JES of circular reasoning in the first post. He assumed human autonomy in order to argue for his ‘unconvincedness’, but he discounted the Christian explanation for his skepticism, the very position that he was trying to say doesn’t have any proof because of his skepticism. Again, I’m not trying to say that it was up to you or him to prove that God doesn’t exist, nor am I making a case for God in my above assertion. I am simply saying that there are other possibilities that you assumed away.
You said, “Also, I'd like to know how I can be a slave when I don't subjugate myself to a master, like those who follow "god's will" do?”
Like I said, the greatest slavery is one in which the slave doesn’t even know that he is a slave. It is one in which he believes himself to be free.
You said, “Also, if no evidence will convince me, and it takes a supernatural act, then why has god not done that?”
Because you (like all human beings, including Christians such as myself) are sinful and have transgressed God’s perfect law. As such, the only thing you (and I) deserve is to die in whatever way possible and suffer eternal conscious punishment (a.k.a. hell). It is only because God is merciful that He saves anyone at all, even though they don’t deserve it. In a potter/clay analogy, God has chosen to save some people to be “vessels of mercy”, and others he has allowed to go their own way without salvation and be “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22-23). Whether you are the latter or not is yet to be seen. If you repent, you will prove yourself to be the former.
I’ll probably get around to posting my argument tomorrow.
Saint and Sinner (Romans 3:10-2
Saint and Sinner,
It is not a circular argument to dispute your assertions of god. In order for one to engage in circular thinking, one has to prove something by assuming that which is to be proven is true. That is not what JES and I are doing. We look at your assumption and find it lacking. You, however, are guilty of circular argumentation. You assume god, then you see god everywhere, which proves god does in fact exist. You would not see god everywhere, however, if you did not first assume god. Hence, you have committed a logical fallacy. JES and I didn't simply assume away your position, we simply don't accept your assumptions as valid. It is up to you to show that your assumptions are valid.
Let me be blunt, there is no scientific proof of god. God is by definition beyond science, which is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural, and therefore outside of the bounds of scientific study. If we could find a way to study the supernatural, then we could include it in science, but as of now we can make a conclusive statement (not an assumption, but a statement based on observed facts) that we have no capacity to study supernatural phenomena through science.
As to slaves and freemen, you think you are less of a slave for admitting such? Is that what you are trying to say?
We only deserve to die? Says who? Isn't it god that has condemned us to death? Is it merciful that he then uncondemns a select few? I guess it is mercy for that few, but let's not forget who is responsible for the death sentence in the first place.
JES,
You said, “As for my unbelief, I absolutely do have blinders on when it comes to the supernatural. I contend that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
My contention is that the evidence is right in front of you. I mean no disrespect, but I am astounded every time I hear an atheist/agnostic/“free-thinker”/etc. demand proof for the supernatural. The fact that he can take in information, process that information, and form cogent sentences in reply is proof enough. To me, anything that has an input, a feedback loop, a controller, and an output is purposefully engineered. [Perhaps I think this way because I am an engineer myself, but I digress.] I believe that is the whole point of ID.
You said, “Let me give you an example…”
Your example is fair enough. I come from a background of having a love for the natural order (i.e. science), and when something happens, I first assume a natural explanation. However, just because one has never seen a supernatural occurrence doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. For example, 99 percent of all supposed “demonic possessions” are actually mental disorders, bacterial/fungal infections of the brain, chemical imbalances in the brain, etc. However, it’s those instances in which multiple people see a twelve year-old involved in the occult throw a 500 pound piano across a room that give me pause. I am simply saying that not everything has a naturalistic explanation.
You said, “So when I look around (especially at Christians) and I see no examples of supernatural events happening on a regular basis, I think I’m within my right to question the claims of Christians”
Just because you don’t see the supernatural happen on a regular basis doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen at all. Just because God doesn’t do extraordinary stuff now doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it in the past. The Christian would answer that God did many things to defend Israel and to build up the Church but has ceased from doing big stuff because it is no longer necessary. Why? Only God knows. However, I believe that not all things that have happened have a naturalistic explanation.
You said, “As for the science piece…”
I am one of those neither/both people. I am neither a physicist nor a biologist, and so, I don’t know enough about the “date of the earth” subject to make an informed decision. However, I do know that scientists are just like any other person. They have their world-view, and sometimes they import that into their work. The absolute objectivity of scientists is a joke. Also, what science has proven today may be disproved by science 25 years from now. Thus, the infallibility of science is a joke.
One example can be found in this recent article: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.c...ay/
dinosaur.php
When this scientist came across this piece of dinosaur flesh with red blood cells still there, she was amazed. However, she criticized the YEC’s who were trying to use this discovery to their advantage by saying that “Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.” Thus, she assumed the infallibility of the existing dating theory and the understanding of the method used to date it instead of pausing and allowing the new find to cast some doubt on or modify the current dating methods.
I don’t want to argue over the science of dating methods (since I don’t know much about them). However, my point was that science isn’t what you make it out to be.
Saint and Sinner (Luke 23:39-43)
St. & Sinner,
You are correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is not evidence for either. Like I said before, you see the fact that people can talk as evidence of god, but only because you have assumed god beforehand, which is circular reasoning. Besides, we can use completely material explanations to demonstrate why people are able to talk. There is no need to invoke a supernatural explanation for it. You'll have to do better than that. You'll also have to do better than, "God works in mysterious ways." That's a cop-out, and I bet you know it.
Scientists do have biases, but that's why we have the process of peer-review and publication. Peer-review helps to eliminate biases, and once something is published if others can not duplicate the work then the work is called into question. And, so what if a theory is overthrown 25 years from now? Only theology seeks to move forward unchanged. Science is ever expanding its knowledge base and if that means that some theories become outdated, then so be it. If science didn't change, then we wouldn't have the understanding of the world that we have today.
GCT,
You said, “Like I said before, you see the fact that people can talk as evidence of god, but only because you have assumed god beforehand, which is circular reasoning.”
I never said that I assumed God beforehand. I stated that I cannot help but view a biological organism (even the simplest) as engineered when I see it. I also hold the view that no one is truly objective. That is why I accused JES and you of likewise being biased when you look at a biological organism. You can deny it all day long, but that likewise begs the question under dispute.
You said, “JES and I didn't simply assume away your position, we simply don't accept your assumptions as valid. It is up to you to show that your assumptions are valid.”
Let me spell out what I am saying when I accuse you of circular reasoning. Your argument:
Premise: I am an autonomous, free creature that is not subject to any God/god/gods/goddesses/pantheistic its/ etc.
Thus, I can make up my own mind because there is no other influence.
Thus, I am objective.
Thus, whatever doesn’t convince me isn’t a good argument.
All arguments for God/the supernatural don’t convince me.
Therefore, they must be bad arguments.
Since there are no good arguments for God, then there is no reason to believe in the supernatural.
Because there is no such thing as the supernatural, there is no other influence upon me other than myself.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am an autonomous, free creature not subject to anything.
Whenever you conclude with what you stated in your premise, then you have engaged in circular reasoning.
You said, “God is by definition beyond science, which is the study of the natural world.”
Of course, scientific arguments can never prove (in the absolute sense) the existence of God. However, such arguments can show that naturalistic explanations of some things (such as the origin of life) are absurd.
You said, “Besides, we can use completely material explanations to demonstrate why people are able to talk. There is no need to invoke a supernatural explanation for it.”
As the ID movement has shown, those explanations aren’t good at all. They defy the laws of chemistry, physics, and statistical probability (i.e. the chance of them happening is far below the threshold of statistical impossibility).
Next, I never complained that science changes. I was merely pointing out that science is not infallible.
You said, “As to slaves and freemen, you think you are less of a slave for admitting such?”
I am a willing bondservant (i.e. a slave) of the risen Christ. It is better to be a servant of the Living God, what I was created to do, than to be a slave of self-destruction and death.
You said, “We only deserve to die? Says who?”
We started to have a discussion about theology, and so I told you what the Scriptures say. I never made an argument of whether they are right or not, but rather, I just told you what I believe.
You said, “Isn't it god that has condemned us to death? Is it merciful that he then uncondemns a select few? I guess it is mercy for that few, but let's not forget who is responsible for the death sentence in the first place.”
We justly deserve such condemnation for our sins. If it weren’t for God’s common grace, then we’d be running around like maniacs in one of those apocalyptic movies. I have been wholly convicted that I deserve eternal conscious punishment (and I am not exaggerating). I pray that you will be convicted of the same one day.
Since this conversation isn’t going anywhere (i.e. it’s just representing all the old arguments from both sides: peer-reviewed journals, God defined out of science, etc.) and is too time consuming, then I guess I’ll let you respond if you wish and have the last word.
Saint and Sinner (Romans 3:10, 23-24)
“There is none righteous, not even one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…”
Saint and Sinner,
I will respond, because you are 100% wrong about a few things.
I don't have any premise that says, "There is no god." I simply don't accept your premise that there is. It is a negative argument, not a positive declaration. You can not accuse me of circular reasoning for disputing your assertions. It's absurd for you to even try.
The ID movement has shown nothing of the sort. Their probabalistic arguments are rubbish. You can't make a probability argument when you have no clue how probable things are, couple that with the fact that they try to figure out the probabilities of events that aren't even hypothesized to happen and it amounts to dishonesty. Besides, those probabilities are pretty much all about abiogenesis and have nothing to do with explaining how people are able to talk. If you are going to bring an example to the discussion, make sure you can back it up. If you want to insert your god into the gaps in our scientific knowledge, be my guest, but that makes for very bad theology. Also, a lack of scientific knowledge about a particular event (abiogenesis for instance) does not mean that goddidit, nor does it mean that making scientific attempts at explanation are absurd or always will be absurd.
Now, when I said, "Says who," I really answered it in the next sentences. Says god, really. God has condemned us all to die, and for what? For doing exactly what he knew we would do when he created us? Does that sound like a just god to you? It certainly doesn't to me. If the Christian god does exist, I would be hard pressed to find him worthy of worship in the stories in the Bible are true. In fact, if the stories are true, he is worth our contempt. If you truly think that without god, people would be running around killing each other, how do you account for the fact that I'm not currently killing someone? I truly feel sorry for you to believe that you are evil and contemptuous simply for being born. That you deserve to be punished for all eternity for sins that you didn't even commit. That somehow the god who has condemned you is worthy of your admiration and worship, even though it is that god that shall sentence you to eternal punishment unless he decides on a whim to give you a reprieve. But, even if he does give you a reprieve, what about all the other people that don't get a reprieve? It's hateful to think that they all deserve to be tortured for all eternity. It's hateful to think that all people are evil and wicked. This isn't loving theology, it is hateful and abhorrent to me.
Saint and Sinner,
You wrote:
My contention is that the evidence is right in front of you. I mean no disrespect, but I am astounded every time I hear an atheist/agnostic/“free-thinker”/etc. demand proof for the supernatural. The fact that he can take in information, process that information, and form cogent sentences in reply is proof enough. To me, anything that has an input, a feedback loop, a controller, and an output is purposefully engineered. [Perhaps I think this way because I am an engineer myself, but I digress.] I believe that is the whole point of ID.
Why is it unreasonable to ask for proof of the supernatural? Do you simply accept every claim that is made without question? UFO’s, Bigfoot, Shroud of Turin. Are these things reality in your world? Here is the UFO sighting database on the web:
UFO database
There are hundreds of sightings every month, on the surface this is more proof than anything you could give for Christianity and yet I’m willing to bet that you ‘doubt’ the existence of UFOs. I’m ‘astounded’.
Just because you don’t see the supernatural happen on a regular basis doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen at all. Just because God doesn’t do extraordinary stuff now doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it in the past. The Christian would answer that God did many things to defend Israel and to build up the Church but has ceased from doing big stuff because it is no longer necessary. Why? Only God knows. However, I believe that not all things that have happened have a naturalistic explanation.
Do we see the supernatural happen on any basis? Can you point to any event and show that God directly caused this to happen? If your personal God is active in over a billion people’s lives wouldn’t we see extraordinary, supernatural events taking place all the time?
I am one of those neither/both people. I am neither a physicist nor a biologist, and so, I don’t know enough about the “date of the earth” subject to make an informed decision. However, I do know that scientists are just like any other person. They have their world-view, and sometimes they import that into their work. The absolute objectivity of scientists is a joke. Also, what science has proven today may be disproved by science 25 years from now. Thus, the infallibility of science is a joke.
I don’t recall claiming that science was infallible, in fact the only people I know to claim infallibility are Christians; infallibility of the Bible, etc. There is no doubt that scientists are biased in their work which is why there is a rigorous peer review system that keeps everyone in check. I cannot recall anyone claiming science is perfect and has all the answers (again Christians make that claim). And tomorrow if a discovery were made that would change a current scientific theory it would need lots of documentation and have to pass a ton of scrutiny, that’s how science works. Too bad religion doesn’t work the same way.
When this scientist came across this piece of dinosaur flesh with red blood cells still there, she was amazed. However, she criticized the YEC’s who were trying to use this discovery to their advantage by saying that “Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.” Thus, she assumed the infallibility of the existing dating theory and the understanding of the method used to date it instead of pausing and allowing the new find to cast some doubt on or modify the current dating methods.
I don’t want to argue over the science of dating methods (since I don’t know much about them). However, my point was that science isn’t what you make it out to be.
I sincerely doubt that you are interested in learning more about dating methods and reliability but if you are here is a Christian group of geologists who do a very good job of explaining radiometric dating:
A Christian perspective on radiometric dating
And if you’re interested in learning more about the dinosaur blood issue, check out Talkorigins.org and search for dinosaur blood (I would add a link but it won't let me have so many links)
Finally I just want to say that one major difference between you and me is fear. Let me explain, you fear Hell and the unknown, if there is something you don’t understand you say that God is responsible good or bad. This has been this way for thousands of years, you even gave an example with demon possession. Here is another example of religious fear of the unknown and where science stepped in and showed that there was nothing to fear, kind of funny:
Lightening Rods
Claiming the God of gaps for everything you don’t understand is not science, it never will be. There is no need to fear science or the unknown.
I apologize for not realizing that my links were not working sooner. I used href tags but those are not needed I see.
Here are the links:
UFO site - http://www.nuforc.org/
Radiometric dating site -
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resource...rces/
Wiens.html
Lightning rod article -
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewr...te/
franklgt.htm
I am a YEC and an IDer. God has revealed Himself in two ways, through His creation and through His Word. The former is called General Revelation and the latter Special Revelation. I see the IDers from the General Revelation side saying that God can be detected solely from His Creation without the revelation from His Word. I think they have shown that it is possible. Even though the most vocal of them has bought into the long age and local flood theorys, I'm all for them. Would we young earthers really have believed in a young earth or Flood Geology if there was no Bible? I bet not. I am distressed with the petty bickering going on between the YEC and IDers. The YEC had their day in court, let the IDers have theirs.
Commenting by HaloScan
