Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Peace for Our Time! With Dr. Collins, How Far Is Too Far?

posted by David Klinghoffer

MunichAgreement_.jpg

When it comes to capitulating to secularism, how far is too far? I’m serious. This is not a rhetorical question.
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, an Evangelical Christian and former Bush speechwriter, writes glowingly of Obama’s Francis Collins nomination for NIH:

Collins’s appointment says something good about the maturity of modern evangelicalism, which is starting to abandon some of its least productive debates with modernity. Criticisms of evolution, rooted in 19th-century controversies, have done little more than set up religious young people for entirely unnecessary crises of faith as they encounter scientific knowledge. In the running conflict of modern biology and evangelicalism, Collins is a peacemaker.

So Collins, a very public Evangelical Christian, concedes almost everything to Darwinism, and that is an example of “maturity” and “peacemaking.” Collins’s Darwinism means radically rethinking the traditional of idea of human beings having been created in God’s image, as he freely admits. Not coincidentally, he capitulates to abortion culture, in shocking ways, and this too is presumably an achievement in “peacemaking.” Neville Chamberlain would surely agree.
Yes, Obama was always going to nominate someone pro-choice (and pro-Darwin, if the point ever came up) to the National Institutes of Health. What’s so insidious here is that he selected an Evangelical Christian, a self-identified traditionalist, who advocates these views. Collins’s example then becomes a tool to manipulate other traditional believers, whether Christian or Jewish. If Dr. Collins is ready to concede, why not you? Aren’t you socially embarrassed to be revealed as some kind of fundamentalist?
(UPDATE: A reader sagely urges that I emphasize: The important meaning of Darwinism is that natural selection, an unguided material process, accounts for all life’s diversity and complexity — a doctrine that is a) scientifically unconvincing and b) would make a hopeless mash of Judaism. On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.)
My question for readers would be this: What’s an example of a moral or theological line that, if secularism crossed it, you as a religious believer would feel compelled to say: “That violates the core of my faith. If accepted, it would make an incoherent mash of my most cherished beliefs. So I need to look at the issue more closely for myself and not simply accept on trust what I’m told by the prestige media or academia.”
Keep reading after the jump.

I don’t mean if secularists advocated, oh, expelling or liquidating a portion of the adult population as non-humans. That would be too easy. (So you would think — it wasn’t for Chamberlain.) This question is not a no brainer, nor is it an invitation to argue the merits of intelligent design versus Darwinism. Rather, where for you is the edge of the envelope? 
Maimonides, learned in the science and philosophy of his own time, wrote in the Guide of the Perplexed (2:25) that while Scripture can be reread in light of science up to a point, this can’t be done without limit. There comes a point where the intellectually, spiritually, and scientifically serious believer is forced to make a choice. In the Middle Ages, the issue was the Aristotelian doctrine that the universe is eternal and has no beginning. That was the scientific cutting edge back then (since proven wrong by the Big Bang). Maimonides concluded:

If the philosophers would succeed in demonstrating eternity as Aristotle understands it, the Torah as a whole would become void, and a shift to other opinions would take place. I have thus explained to you that everything is bound up with this problem.

If being created in God’s image, and the sacredness of life even in the womb, do not represent edges of the envelope for you, then what does? 
I ask this as a Jew who has written that historically, Christianity originated when some Jews couldn’t rightly answer the question for themselves: How far is too far?
I would love it if someone were to candidly question Francis Collins himself. He has been challenged to a public dialogue on these and other issues. Marvin Olasky of World Magazine has offered to host an event, matching Collins up against Stephen Meyer. Perhaps such questions will come up at his confirmation hearing.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(22)
post a comment
Gabriel Hanna

posted July 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm


The point of the Neville Chamberlain photo is…? You have time for more Hitler smears, but not time for answering substantive objections?
If being created in God’s image…
When are you going to admit that Maimonides disagrees with you about what this means? Clearly you’ve had some time to read him, if you are quoting him.
On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.
In other words, you believe in evolution, but by miracle rather than natural selection? You believe that the Earth was not created 6000 years ago?
Oh, do expound on this for us.
a doctrine that is a) scientifically unconvincing…
You’ve demonstrated here several times that you don’t know anything about the science other than what lets you lie to the ignorant about it.

b) would make a hopeless mash of Judaism.

Too many of your coreligionists disagree. But since you don’t understand what Maimonides said about “created in God’s image”, maybe there are other aspects of Judaism you fail to understand.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm


What’s an example of a moral or theological line that, if secularism crossed it, you as a religious believer would feel compelled to say: “That violates the core of my faith. If accepted, it would make an incoherent mash of my most cherished beliefs. So I need to look at the issue more closely for myself and not simply accept on trust what I’m told by the prestige media or academia.”
That it’s okay to lie for your religion, or kill people for it. But it’s rarely secularists who cross that particular line.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm


DK: “I don’t mean if secularists advocated, oh, expelling or liquidating a portion of the adult population as non-humans. That would be too easy. (So you would think — it wasn’t for Chamberlain.) This question is not a no brainer, nor is it an invitation to argue the merits of intelligent design versus Darwinism. Rather, where for you is the edge of the envelope?”
Your hidden assumptions here are breathtaking. (1) All secularists are atheists. (2) All Darwinists are atheists. (3) All atheists/secularists have no moral code whatever.
Stated openly, these assumption are flagrantly incorrect. Yet they undergird your entire argument. Did you really think that no one would call you to account?
(1) Just for the record, a secularist is one who asserts that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. An atheist is one who believes there is no God or other supernatural entities.
The writers of the United States Constitution were secularists—but not atheists. In fact, separation of church and state was formulated for the protection of religion, not for its denigration. Turkey is constitutionally a secular state with a highly religious population. The majority of Israelis are secularists but not atheists.
(2) Francis Collins. Ken Miller. Francisco Ayala. Asa Gray, Aubrey Moore (“the facts of nature are the acts of God”). … … … … Olorin.
(3) Has Richard Dawkins ever advocated expelling or liquidating a portion of the adult population as non-humans? Has PZ Myers ever been indicted for armed robbery, murder, or spitting on the sidewalk? Several studies have shown that atheists/agnostics are statistically indistinguishable from religious believers in situations involving moral choices. With one exception: the atheists ranked perceptibly better than the believers in choices involving the environment.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted July 15, 2009 at 4:07 pm


natural selection, an unguided material process, accounts for all life’s diversity and complexity — a doctrine that is a) scientifically unconvincing

You mean when you close your ears to all evidence, chanting “la la la la la.” Or if you’re seriously ignorant and/or brain damaged.
Gee, why do those of us who actually understand it find it to be highly convincing, while the opposition is invariably incapable of dealing with the evidence that we bring forward?
That’s just it, one may very seriously ask whether or not Collins is an appeaser on the issue of life/abortion.
But if god is said to be ultimately responsible for life and the universe, you are hypocritical or illogical to claim that following the evidence to see non-teleological evolution as responsible for the stalemated evolutionary struggles between human and parasite and between predator and prey, the derivative nature of the changes in life through time (an evolutionary, not a design, constraint), and the lack of foresight throughout. The fact is that you’re in a catch-22 situation, claiming that god is immediately responsible for life, while ignoring all of the evidence that life evolved sans the marks of thought, rationality, and concern for humanity and other animals.
That is why you and all of your ilk never engage in an honest discussion, although we’re obviously ready and willing. “Ready” is the problem, because we can give an account for our claims, and you never have and never will.
Thus the writer is abundantly correct that you are needlessly setting up youths for crises of faith. At least it’s needless from the viewpoint of many theologians and believers, while I don’t think that it is my place to ultimately decide if a particular religion is or is not compatible with science.
With you it’s, close your ears to the evidence, and deny whatever gets through, while holding onto claims of “evident design” that no intellectually honest person ever could. Meanwhile, apparently honest people who are believers are constantly maligned by you for being honest to the evidence that you yourself claim is ultimately due to god’s actions.
Your own hangups are no excuse for your attacks upon your fellow theists. Yes, I know that you are ruled by various phobias and taboos. Those are not the core of most religion, however, and it is not your place to try to force them onto others.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Steve

posted July 15, 2009 at 6:41 pm


David wrote: “The important meaning of Darwinism is that natural selection, an unguided material process, accounts for all life’s diversity and complexity — a doctrine that is a) scientifically unconvincing and b) would make a hopeless mash of Judaism.”
David, what do you mean by “Darwinism?” And what reason is there to believe that “Darwinism” is “scientifically unconvincing?”
And what do you mean by “natural selection?” Some of the kinds of events that have contributed to the differences among organisms are lateral transfer, asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction, meiosis and mutations. For instance, I’m different than my parents partly because they reproduced with each other.
Also, none of the kinds of events I mentioned caused the existence of the first cell on earth. In fact, no person currently knows exactly which series of events which resulted in the first cell being on earth. Here is a quote from Ernst Mayr’s What Evolution Is:
“What else can we say about the beginnings of life? After 1859 some of Darwin’s critics said: ‘This Darwin may well have explained the evolution of organisms on earth, but he has not yet explained how life itself may have originated. How can inanimate matter suddenly become life?’ This was a formidable challenge to the Darwinians. Indeed, for the next 60 years, this seemed an unanswerable question even though Darwin himself had already perceptively speculated on this issue: ‘all the conditions for the first production of a living organism…[could be met]…in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present.’ Well, it did not turn out to be as easy as Darwin thought.
“…The first serious theories on the origin of life were proposed in the 1920s (Oparin, Haldane). In the last 75 years, an extensive literature dealing with this problem has developed and some six or seven competing theories for the origin of life have been proposed. Although no fully satisfactory theory has yet emerged, the problem no longer seems as formidable as at the beginning of the twentieth century. One is justified to claim that there are now a number of feasible scenarios of how life could have originated from inanimate matter. To understand these various theories requires a good deal of technical knowledge of biochemistry. To avoid burdening this volume with such detail, I refer the read to the special literature dealing with the origin of life (Schopf 1999; Brack 1999; Oparin 1938; Zubbay 2000).
“The first pioneers of life on Earth had to solve two major (and some minor) problems: (1) how to acquire energy and (2) how to replicate. The Earth’s atmosphere at the time was essentially devoid of oxygen. But there was abundant energy from the sun and in the ocean from sulfides. Thus growth and acquisition of energy were apparently no major problem. It has often been suggested that rocky surfaces were coated with metabolizing films that could grow but not replicate. The invention of replication was more difficult. DNA is now (except in some viruses) known as the molecule that is indispensable in replication. But how could it ever have been coopted for this function? There is no good theory for this. However, RNA has enzymatic capacities and could have been selected for this property, with its role in replication being secondary. It is now believed that there may have been an RNA world before the DNA world. There was apparently already protein synthesis in this RNA world, but it lacked the efficiency of the DNA protein synthesis.
“In spite of all the theoretical advances that have been made toward solving the problem of the origin of life, the cold fact remains that no one has so far succeeded in creating life in a laboratory. This would require not only an anoxic atmosphere, but presumably also other somewhat unusual conditions (temperature, chemistry of the medium) that no one has yet been able to replicate. It had to be a liquid (aqueous) medium that was perhaps similar to the hot water of the volcanic vents at the ocean floor. Many more years of experimentation will likely pass before a laboratory succeeds in actually producing life. However, the production of life cannot be too difficult, because it happened on Earth apparently as soon as conditions became suitable for life, around 3.8 billion years ago. Unfortunately we have no fossils from the 300 million years between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest known fossiliferous rocks are 3.5 billion years old and already contain a remarkably rich biota of bacteria” (What Evolution Is, p. 42 – 43).
However, it is known that some of my ancestors are fish and that some of my ancestors are bacteria. Here is another quote from Mayr:
“Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young Earth was not suitable for life, owing to the heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became liveable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what the first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun’s energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some blue-green bacteria and other bacteria that are still living” (p. 40).



report abuse
 

Steve

posted July 15, 2009 at 6:50 pm


David wrote: “My question for readers would be this: What’s an example of a moral or theological line that, if secularism crossed it, you as a religious believer would feel compelled to say: ‘That violates the core of my faith. If accepted, it would make an incoherent mash of my most cherished beliefs. So I need to look at the issue more closely for myself and not simply accept on trust what I’m told by the prestige media or academia.'”
What do you mean by “secularism?” And how can “secularism” “cross a line?” I’m an atheist. I believe that there are zero Gods.
Also, let’s say that a given claim, X, is logically inconsistent with some claims that are really important to some people. That is, of course, irrelevant to whether I know that claim X is true or false. For instance, for some people, the belief that the universe is about 6,000 years old is very important to them. But I’m quite sure that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. That’s life. Sometimes the claims that you would like to believe are true are known to be false.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm


David: On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.
???!!! And this is different from theistic evolution how?! David, are you reading what you’re writing? Do you realize that a statement like this essentially gave away the shop and conceded what we’ve been saying for weeks?!
Read Mortimer Adler’s How to Think About God. He was a non-believing Jew at the time he wrote it (and thus not grinding any particular axes). He explains, among other things, how, even if the universe is eternal, that does not keep it from being created by God. I would, in fact, recommend this book to anyone.
Re Maimonides: You’re playing fast and loose, David. Here’s the full quote from M. Friedlander’s translation, p. 199:
“If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, >b>unless the miracles are explained figuratively The Allegorists among the Mohammedans [sic] have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions. If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second or the theories we have described above (ch. xxiii), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion; this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, and on the contrary, would admit them as possible.” (all emphasis added)
I agree with what Gabriel has said in the past. It is highly misleading and intellectually dishonest to take partial quotes like this out of context, when the full quote says the opposite of what you claim it says. It’s also odd that Maimonides is an authority for you when you (mis-) quote him regarding the eternity of the cosmos, but that you suddenly disagree with him when his idea of the image of God is something you don’t like.
I would join Gabriel in pressing you to get back to us on Maimonides, as you said you would. Hey, look, I’m a lowly schoolteacher, I’m not a Jew, and I’m not a professional philosopher (though it is a hobby), and I’ve got a copy of The Guide for the Perplexed, and I can find a little time here and there to read it and to articulate opinions about it. Surely you have time to do as much?



report abuse
 

Phil

posted July 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm


“In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously — and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in consisting of or occurring within a water-based system, aqueous solution, or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible.” Leslie Orgel, 1998
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – David L Abel and Jack T Trevors:
Excerpt: Genetic algorithms instruct sophisticated biological organization. Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC). FSC alone provides algorithmic instruction…No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization…It is only in researching the pre-RNA world that the problem of single-stranded metabolically functional sequencing of ribonucleotides (or their analogs) becomes acute. And of course highly-ordered templated sequencing of RNA strands on natural surfaces such as clay offers no explanation for biofunctional sequencing. The question is never answered, “From what source did the template derive its functional information?” In fact, no empirical evidence has been presented of a naturally occurring inorganic template that contains anything more than combinatorial uncertainty. No bridge has been established between combinatorial uncertainty and utility of any kind.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it:
“Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2662469



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 15, 2009 at 10:07 pm


DK: “I don’t mean if secularists advocated, oh, expelling or liquidating a portion of the adult population as non-humans. That would be too easy. (So you would think — it wasn’t for Chamberlain.) This question is not a no brainer, nor is it an invitation to argue the merits of intelligent design versus Darwinism. Rather, where for you is the edge of the envelope?”
Your hidden assumptions here are breathtaking. (1) All secularists are atheists. (2) All Darwinists are atheists. (3) All atheists/secularists have no moral code whatever.
Stated openly, these assumption are flagrantly incorrect. Yet they undergird your entire argument. Did you really think that no one would call you to account?
(1) Just for the record, a secularist is one who asserts that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. An atheist is one who believes there is no God or other supernatural entities.
The writers of the United States Constitution were secularists—but not atheists. In fact, separation of church and state was formulated for the protection of religion, not for its denigration. Turkey is constitutionally a secular state with a highly religious population. The majority of Israelis are secularists but not atheists.
(2) Francis Collins. Ken Miller. Francisco Ayala. Asa Gray, Aubrey Moore (“the facts of nature are the acts of God”). … … … … Olorin.
(3) Has Richard Dawkins ever advocated expelling or liquidating a portion of the adult population as non-humans? Has PZ Myers ever been indicted for armed robbery, murder, or spitting on the sidewalk? Several studies have shown that atheists/agnostics are statistically indistinguishable from religious believers in situations involving moral choices. With one exception: the atheists ranked perceptibly better than the believers in choices involving the environment.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted July 15, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Phil, I’m not sure what the point of your post is. But here is a quote from Leslie Orgel from 2004: “Anybody who thinks they know the solution to this problem [of the origin of life] is deluded. But anybody who thinks this is an insoluble problem is also deluded.”
Here is a link:
http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/100704.html
The article I link to includes information on recent research that has been done on abiogenesis.
In addition, here is a link to an article in the New York Times by Nicholas Wade on research done by John Sutherland, a chemist at Manchester University:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=2&hpw
Sutherland’s works suggests that the element phosphorus may have been important as a catalyst in the formation of RNA.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted July 16, 2009 at 6:25 am


On the phosphorous scenario:
Stirring the Soup – May 2009
“essentially, the scientists have succeeded in creating a couple of letters of the biological alphabet (in a “thermodynamically uphill” environment). What they need to do now is create the remaining letters, and then show how these letters were able to attach themselves together to form long chains of RNA, and arrange themselves in a specific order to encode information for creating specific proteins, and instructions to assemble the proteins into cells, tissues, organs, systems, and finally, complete phenotypes.” Uncommon Descent subscriber C Bass’s sobering comment on latest RNA world “breakthrough” of evolutionists:
Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry
Excerpt: Organic chemist Dr. Charles Garner recently noted in private correspondence that “while this work helps one imagine how RNA might form, it does nothing to address the information content of RNA. So, yes, there was a lot of guidance by an intelligent chemist.” Sutherland’s research produced only 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases, and Dr. Garner also explained why, as is often the case, “the basic chemistry itself also required the hand of an intelligent chemist.”
General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology:
– The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: – two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides – ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides – at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2apYNw0Zn2Y
Etc..etc…etc…
“And Joshua said unto all the people [of Israel], . . . choose you this day whom ye will serve; . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:2, 15).



report abuse
 

Phil

posted July 16, 2009 at 6:38 am


Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – Robert Villarreal – Press Release video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEJPrMGksUg
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XLcdaFKzYg



report abuse
 

NLG

posted July 16, 2009 at 7:29 am


I don’t think I have ever met a Theistic Evolutionist who thinks that evolution is unguided. Most say they don’t know if God set things in motion so that the end result is inevitable, or if he is actively guiding things. Their main point is that it’s an article of faith that everything is in God’s hands and they are not concerned that science doesn’t reveal any of His fingerprints.
They are theistic by faith and evolutionist because of the scientific evidence.
As far as I can see, the only difference between Theistic Evolution and ID is that ID claims that we can find evidence of God in Creation if we would only search for it. In other words they demand materialistic evidence for God.
This is where I draw the line. When you demand that I drop my faith in God and invent some bogus evidence for Him to sooth your lack of faith.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 16, 2009 at 8:20 am


Olorin:
Dawkins did say that anyone who questions evolution is evil and thathe wanted to put them in jail. He also said that religious people are worse than child molesters. That’s harsh.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted July 16, 2009 at 8:25 am


You state: When you demand that I drop my faith in God and invent some bogus evidence for Him to sooth your lack of faith.
And how is scientific evidence such as the Big Bang demanding that you drop your faith? I would think that that particular piece of scientific evidence would be very comforting to your faith in God and very disconcerting to the Atheistic faith. Would not your faith have been misplaced if the evidence had pointed to a non-created universe? And as Such as in life. We find incredible complexity that far surpasses mans ability to devise as such and yet we find consistent evidence for the lack of natural processes to generate such functional complexity (despite atheistic concerted obfuscation to the contrary) and Since we know for 100% certainty that intelligence can produce this type of functional complexity and we know of 0% of instances of nature generating this type of functional complexity, Is it not reasonable to allow a inference to intelligence? I don’t know what type of faith you possess, but if it is of the type that believes no matter what the evidence says, then I believe that is called blind faith and is in reality no better than the man who insists he is Napoleon despite all evidence to the contrary. I am sure he would consider his being Napoleon to be very real and even sacred, but alas faith must square with reality on some level or else it is delusion.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 16, 2009 at 5:47 pm


Since we know for 100% certainty that intelligence can produce this type of functional complexity and we know of 0% of instances of nature generating this type of functional complexity…
Phil, do you have a photograph or a fossil or something that shows God creating life from nothing?
Meanwhile, biologists have found thousands showing life evolving.
Put up or shut up.
If intelligence is needed to produce life, because it is more complex, then where does intelligence come from?
You can’t answer. Your argument defeats itself. If you get to assume God without any proof of where He came from or even that He exists, we get to assume evolution without proof. That’s only fair.
Except we actually do provide evidence. You provide nothing.
All you do is cut and paste. What is your profession, sir? Why should I listen to you, and not people who spend their lives studying what you ignorantly spout off about?



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted July 16, 2009 at 7:25 pm


Still the old debate about evolution versus faith? The brilliant humorist, Pat Condell, was asked why he disliked faith. He answered, “Why do you dislike reality.” Brilliant! See his website http://www.patcondell.net.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted July 16, 2009 at 10:27 pm


Why should you fight so hard against God Gabriel ? Of what possible profit would there be for you in this world to be so bitterly hostile towards Him? The heavens scream His glory! The design of life is so vastly complex as to send shudders down my spine and make me feel nothing less than awe for the Creator! Why should you not find this evidence wonderful as well? Should you not be happy that there is actually a Creator who offers eternal life to you? Why would you cling so tenaciously to such shallow lies and obfuscations of evidence? I can fairly well grasp many matters of science but surely the insanity of such reasoning is beyond any logic I can muster.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:58 pm


Your Name (July 16, 2009 8:20 AM) “Olorin: Dawkins did say that anyone who questions evolution is evil and that he wanted to put them in jail. He also said that religious people are worse than child molesters. That’s harsh.”
Your point being? That this is the moral equivalent of murder? How would you rate Dawkins in comparison with, oh, Jim Jones forcing his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid for the faith?



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted July 17, 2009 at 5:12 am


Phil, do you have a photograph or a fossil or something that shows God creating life from nothing?
Meanwhile, biologists have found thousands showing life evolving.
Gabriel show us one good clearcut example of evolution so we can give some credence to evolutionist claims. They all seem to depend on tall stories.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm


Gabriel show us one good clearcut example of evolution so we can give some credence to evolutionist claims. They all seem to depend on tall stories.
Whales. Horses. Birds. Dozens of hominids. Dinosaurs. Trilobites. Tens of thousands of bones.
I already posted links-responding specifically to YOU, kernestm. Now you are lying, pretending never said anything. You won’t even look at them, just like the scholastics who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.
Where’s your creation fossil?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 18, 2009 at 12:15 pm


Why should you fight so hard against God Gabriel ? Of what possible profit would there be for you in this world to be so bitterly hostile towards Him?
Phil, I don’t have hate God any more than I hate the Easter Bunny. What I hate are people who don’t know how to do my job telling me I’m doing it wrong. If your science is better than mine, then why are you arguing religion?
Where’s your creation fossil, Phil?
Where did God come from?
Did God create plants, then animals, then people both male and female, as it says in Genesis 1, or did he create plants, then Adam, then animals, then Eve, like it says in Genesis 2? Was Adam not made from clay? Then why did you rebuke me, saying I thought my “greatgrandpappy was a mud puddle” when your holy book says he was actual mud?
You can’t replace something with nothing, Phil.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.