#51518: — 12/01  at  02:49 PM
Interesting reading, but it seems to be the OSC who leans this towards some spooky conspiracy. Reading the actual emails they present as evidence, what I saw were people who were worried about their own reputations by being associated with the fellow, and a rather lax attitude in several regards that was only questioned when it was brought up.

People were surprised to find that he had a master key and unlimited access when apparently no other RA's were granted such privileges, and were suggesting that that was inappropriate. Had it been brought to their attention for any other reason, they would likely have responded with the exact same surprise and disapproval.

Also, I don't know about that 'peer review veil'. When I had peer reviews of my articles, the editor selected the people most knowledgeable and most likely to find fault with my articles, and they actually signed off on the manuscript (wrote their names on it, so I knew exactly who my reviewers were), and sometimes contacted me by email for clarification or to make suggestions for changes or improvements. I don't know why scientists would want to hide the fact that they reviewed something, it was considered an honor to be selected as a reviewer, as far as I know.

Technically, any time two people get together to discuss an action, I guess you could consider it a 'conspiracy'. But people in those emails were volunteering to sponsor the guy if he needed a sponsor, and were worried about the 'uncomfortableness' and 'tension' in the office in all directions. They also noted that he had to be treated the same way as they intended to treat other RA's.

I wouldn't want to work in an office with someone I considered to have abrogated his ethical responsibilities either, and I'd want to be assured if at all possible that they had not done so - in this case, making sure that he actually had selected good reviewers, and not just handed the article off to his co-authors because of their slant on an article. And if I were associated with an institution on cancer research, for instance, and started doing research on the effects of white magic on curing cancer or allowed articles on same to be published in the institutional journal, I can suggest very quickly people would want to keep an eye on my work too. (white magic = beneficial supernatural actions) (action of God = beneficial supernatural actions) Since a pharm company can't put God and or magic in a bottle to cure people, they probably aren't going to want to fund my research either.

Being scientifically honest (not making up data, not ignoring data, making sure articles aren't plagiarized or are correctly reviewed) is the heart of science. I think the big problem with Sternberg and Meyer was that the scientists involved with the SI felt the article was non-scientific enough that there had to have been some deliberate attempt to perpetrate a fraud by including it in the journal, that it couldn't possibly have been peer reviewed for scientific accuracy. Had that particular journal not had some sort of 'veil' over their peer review process, they may not have had the controversy they did.

If it was patently obvious that the article WAS reviewed by qualified fellow scientists with no particular bias, there would really not have been any room to give Sternberg grief over publishing it.

Motivations and fears evident to me: Fear of being guilty by association with presumed non-scientific behaviour. Remember, these are scientists, not philosophers. They earn their livelihood because they demonstrably conform to the rules of proper scientific behaviour. As with Sternberg, if people start thinking you are 'cheating' (plagiarism, falsifying data, 'fixing' the review process, or whatever the problem) your career is going down the toilet. To use a religious metaphor, it's like finding out your priest is a child molester. Of COURSE nobody wants to be associated with him.

I got a chuckle out of them being upset that he had 50 books out of the library, though. Every prof I knew always had stacks of checked out books around their offices.

And I still would like a link to the actual Meyer article. I'm quite curious as to what started all the uproar.

#51644: — 12/02  at  07:58 AM
Stephen Meyer Article: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

#51754: — 12/02  at  03:47 PM
AJ: "In my defense, however, I'm quite naturally suspicious whenever I see the issue raised, and I think the reasons should be obvious now."

I was aware from the beginning, yes.

One of the major reasons I was defending it (as, after all, I won't bother to defend all the positions I hold that are disagreed with) is in fact people like Ransom there.

I disagree with many of the conclusions he tries to draw from the stance - but I know that people such as you and Saul wind up taking an extreme position in response to people like him.

I'm just trying to bring a bit of moderation to the debate, because when people like you wind up making kneejerk reactions to anything even sounding like "faith" ... it hurts the very valid points you have and makes the extremists like Ransom seem vaguely reasonable to some people.
I'm strongly in favor of private faith, while public faith (in the sense of trying to make universal decisions about the public sphere based actively on faith) can give me the heebie-jeebies, and I think I'm hardly in a minority in that regard... but as the debate grows polarized, both sides wind up attacking that stance strongly, which I feel hurts us all around.

#51756: — 12/02  at  04:00 PM
Saul: My belief about God is, fundamentally, that God is an ineffable loving creator.

I do not believe in religions as such as they are, essentially universally, a mechanism for imposing a specific faith on a culture, and not as universally but still quite frequently, have become a mechanism for perpetuating the power of a limited group.

And yes, I would say that most of the major religions are "close" in their understanding of God, but are, by the very nature of humanity and religion, wrong to some degree. I also don't think that being correct about God is incredibly important - indeed, "so long as it works for you" is the major criteria I'd hold for private faith. (See last post for the distinction between public and private faith, if necessary.)

And yes, it's very unscientific. I admit that freely - and that's why I reject public faith. I view truth as both subjective and collective... which is something of a contradiction, and I'm aware of that. I feel that whatever a person believes in is essentially true for that person, but to share that truth requires a mutually agreed-upon system of truth - and science is the closest thing to a universal such system that we have. Thus, I consider the only legitimate argument about truth to be based on science, but also hold that there can be truths that cannot be argued, either for or against.

Is this at all clear? This is the first time I've really articulated my position, so I'm not sure how well I did.


PS: Apologies for being rude earlier. The past few weeks have been rather hectic and stressful, you know?

#51820: — 12/03  at  06:29 AM
Sotek, no apologies needed, it's all good (get it, "Saul Good")

Ok so you believe that God is beyond description and comprehension other than for the fact that you believe he (we'll refer to God as a he) is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it and that he is a loving entity, right?

Now do you believe that he has no beginning or is that one of those unknowables? Just for fun, stay with me here for there really only are 2 options, either yes he does or no he doesn't. Now if he does than either he was created himself by his creator (and so on going backwards through time forever with again no beginning) or else he came into existence in the exact same mysterious way that the universe did if God was not responsible for it's creation...that is, by some natural rather than supernatural force(s). But then that defeats the whole concept of God as an alternative explanation / the too complex ID theory, no?

On the other hand, if he has no beginning, what the heck does that mean? Infinity is a pretty long time, right? It makes 15 billion years since the creation of the universe seem like a drop in the ocean of time. Sorry, but I just can't wrap my mind around what he was doing by himself for all those years with no universe to take care of and watch over...unless of course the current universe is just merely his latest attempt following an infinte number of universes that he created previously and decided to ditch. Either that or he's really into twiddling his thumbs.

I think there's a difference between things unknowable and things that intellect and common sense dictate to be pretty unlikely. What are your thoughts on this? Is there perhaps a third option here I'm leaving out?

Now as for this loving nature of your God. Was the love that say a T-Rex expressed for his dinner God's idea of his love for that poor prey? Or for that matter, any creature that survives by consuming other creatures. Couldn't your loving God in his infinite wisdom have come up with a more "humane" plan? And try not to answer by saying how the heck should I know because I'm only asking you to think through the consequences of your assumptions.

And I'd also ask you is it God's love that created this world with tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes and famines and droughts? Is it God's love that creates birth defects and sickness and suffering? Is it God's love that has made countless millions of species that he created go extinct? Is it God's love that created human beings that are capable of hate and waging wars? Or is all of that and more just besides the point and your reference to a loving God simply the embodiment of the very basic concept of loving one another? I think the latter and in that sense God becomes reduced more to an idea than a real thing. And if you think of it in that light it makes more sense...I mean why would there only be one God rather than say a whole species of godly entities? I think it's because one is merely a more simplistic concept for religous / spiritual folks to grasp.

So what am I missing here? Why isn't this obvious to everyone? It's because faith in God gives people hope and comfort and an explanation to things they can't explain otherwise. No, I can't explain what caused the big bang or the very first spark of life on earth to happen but before I give credit to God, I would need to come to terms with some of the issues I raised above. Got any good answers for me other than faith trumps intellect or having faith is the path to a more meaningful life even if it is all based on a lie?

#51824: — 12/03  at  07:45 AM
Saul:

If I am understanding your posts right:

1) I think the following link addresses some of your first concerns from the cosmological argument perspective:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause

2) C.S. Lewis wrote "The Problem of Pain" which I think addresses some of your second. The following link sums up his perspective. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html

C.S. Lewis of course is from a Christian worldview.

Sotek:
"I disagree with many of the conclusions he tries to draw from the stance - but I know that people such as you and Saul wind up taking an extreme position in response to people like him."

It's possible my position seems extreme because of other people's posts here and on other evolution blogs. I consider myself reasonable and fair, although I do stand firm in my convictions as do you. I also think I am misunderstood by others and misunderstand others as passions fly. I think if anything smells of the opposite position, we all automatically react to a degree and are not really hearing each other out. I think we get bogged down in defending our own positions. But, that's just one man's opinion.

#51900: — 12/04  at  01:54 AM
Ransom: Your stance is extreme because you refuse to acknowledge facts, and attempt to impose private faith on public discourse.


Saul: "But then that defeats the whole concept of God as an alternative explanation / the too complex ID theory, no?"
Yes - it does. But, as you might note, I never said God is the answer because the universe is too complex. I have faith in God - but not because I think that resolves a problem with science.

And to be technical, you did leave out a third possibility, sort of - the universe created God, or simply that God is atemporal.

"Or is all of that and more just besides the point and your reference to a loving God simply the embodiment of the very basic concept of loving one another? I think the latter and in that sense God becomes reduced more to an idea than a real thing."

Somewhat true, yes.

And no, I don't think I have good answers, not really. I have answers that work for me - and they're a patchwork of Christianity, a bit of Buddhism, some doses of secular humanism, and some simply wierd stuff. I'm not here to try to get others to agree with me on that - I'm here to try to convince people that attacking religion is simply not the way to solve problems, especially not the problem of the ID movement.

You see, when it comes to the ID movement, there's a key fact you don't seem to notice - they will not quit, We can win at every turn, but they won't stop until every member of the movement's died of old age - and even then, only if they haven't managed to attract new people (and trust me, they have.)

The only way to win is to ensure that, until then, we do everything we can to educate people; both in why scientists think evolution is true, and why it's okay to agree with them. The people who win this front of the culture war are not going to be the militant athiests - if it's anyone on our side, it'll be people like Ken Miller, who can take ID on in the ground of theology.

#51906: — 12/04  at  08:45 AM
Dr. Ransom,

Given the links you provided above, help me understand your positions on the following:

1) Ok, by using the premise that God has no beginning, one could challenge the cosmological argument. But is that a realistic premise or merely the only one available to refute the argument? How can you resolve and accept in your mind without question the concept of something having no beginning?

2) Again, in your own humble opinion, if God truly has no beginning, since the current universe certainly does, do you think the current universe is just God's latest crack at this in an infinite series of prior universes he created or that he was satisfied twiddling his thumbs for all of eternity minus the last measly 15 billion years (or better yet, the 6,000 years that the bible teaches)? Please don't say "how the heck should I know" as I am only asking you for your assumptions based on the logical and natural implications of your beliefs.

3) The Problem of Pain link only addresses the last one of my questions above related to your loving God's plan for creation. If God's gift of free will to man is the source and consequence of pain on this earth, how do you explain all of my other questions above that had nothing to do with any made made decisions or actions but rather can only be attributed to the imperfections of your God's design.

4) If God does not interfer with the sufferings of man why then do people pray to God thinking that he will intervene? If the mother of a dying child prays to God to heal her child and the child lives, the mother praises God for this. But what if the dying child of another mother prays to God and the child dies? Was God not listening to the second mother? Was her faith not as worthy? Or isn't it more likely that God had absolutely nothing at all in the world to do with the first child living regardless of whatever the child's mother may believe about that?

#51909: — 12/04  at  09:10 AM
typo in question 3...that's supposed to read "man made" not "made made"

#51931: — 12/04  at  12:39 PM
Sotek:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not see evolution as fact. I think offering ID as a tentative theory is no different than offering evolution as a tentative theory. My desire is not to impose, but to allow discourse.

If there is an objective God out there (I believe there is), and not just some subjective experience, I think he would be revealed through some means (I believe general (observation of the world, i.e. science) and special revelation (the Bible and person of Jesus)is that means. Other than that, it is personal opinion.

”And no, I don't think I have good answers, not really. I have answers that work for me…”

If you argue you have answers that work for you, I do not understand how you can argue against the answers that work for me.

”You see, when it comes to the ID movement, there's a key fact you don't seem to notice - they will not quit…”

I think you sincerely believe what you believe and from your worldview it makes sense that you would advocate your position and beliefs. I think the ID folks are the same. Why would they quit? All people through all ages think they are right and most would say, “yeah, but I’m really right.”

”The only way to win is to ensure that, until then, we do everything we can to educate people; both in why scientists think evolution is true, and why it's okay to agree with them.”

I don’t think that strategy will work. There is a fundamental disagreement in worldview. The modern western humanistic mind presupposes the material/natural at the exclusion of the supernatural, whereas the religious mind presuppose the supernatural as part of reality. Neither can be proven. The rest of the argument hinges on those presuppositions. "Winning" would seem to imply your position is advocated at the exlusion of others in the educational process. To me that seems to be a desire to impose it on others.

#51948: — 12/04  at  02:32 PM
Saul:

I will do my best to communicate my positions with a preamble. First, I am a Christian. I am conservative in my theology and orthodox in my beliefs. I don’t apologize for that. It’s who I am, and where I am. I would ask you to resist the temptation to stereotype and label me and my positions as you to try to understand what I am saying rather than assume you understand me as an individual. I know that there are con artists out there who do spiritually abuse people and take them for a ride. The Bible attests to that reality as well. I don’t live in an ivory tower. But, there are people who sincerely practice the Christian faith and are sincere in their beliefs. I have also had enough education by now to know that every argument has a counter argument or criticism, so in the end we put it all together and take a position. So, I will do my best to answer your questions with that said. I believe human beings are limited in their knowledge and ability to know, so at many points, I do not know and I hold many things by faith informed by science, revelation, and experience. As I have stated before, I think everyone holds many things by faith. In the end, I my position could be wrong.

1) To me, it is the only thing that makes sense. My understanding in the natural world is that matter can not be created or destroyed. It just changes form. In addition, there can not be an infinite regress of uncaused causes. At some point, something or someone outside of time and space (the natural) had to just be and had to be the first uncaused cause. To me that is God (by faith). The alternative is to hold by faith that the universe in some form has always just been or created itself, which means something can come from nothing. That doesn’t make sense. Either way, it’s a step of faith, to me.

2) I really don’t know, but here is my opinion. There is nothing to say He didn’t create other worlds or universes. Although, I do not see Him as One who twiddles His thumbs. It doesn’t mean there is not something else out there in a form that we can not even begin to comprehend (heaven, hell, planets, universes, things we don’t have words for, etc. Natural observation would say this is all there is. Experience would say this is all there is. Special revelation, says there is more, but it may not be all inclusive, only what was revealed.

3) I was a little confused by #3. I was not sure if your were saying God was a God of my design or God’s design in creation. The God, I believe in is not of my design. A god that I would have created would be far different and self serving (like Bruce Almighty). I would never have conceived Jesus. I think theologically, the rest of the “design imperfections” are argued to be the result of sin in the world. An example might be problems caused by man’s poor environmental stewardship, thus leading to environmental consequences (global warming) or diet, smoking, drug use etc… leading to birth defects. These are not inclusive, only limited examples. I can only imagine how far reaching man’s actions alter and have altered the world we live their lives and the lives of future generations . I think we are only beginning to tap this area through study.

4) This one is tough. As an atheist, I loathed religion, Christianity in particular, because of the problem of pain and the suffering in my own life and the world around me. First, I do not believe God causes suffering or pain, but I do believe He allows it because love requires choice (although this goes against what seems natural to a part of me) and God can use pain and suffering to bring about good (turning lemons to lemonade, if you will). I do believe God intervenes in the lives of people. Scripture is replete with examples of His actions in our world, HIStory. At the same time, I don’t believe He always does (that is hard to swallow, but I believe in His wisdom, He makes that call. That’s easier to say here, than when I am going through something really difficult. C.S. Lewis’s “a Grief Observed” addresses that very well). It does not mean He was not listening. As I struggled with these similar issues, I came to a point to realize that I, humans, were not the end all of knowledge. That’s the humanistic perspectives. I do all I can to understand, but I am limited. At some point, I trust God is God and is wiser than I.

I doubt this simple post will bring resolution to the questions you have. Books and books about this stuff have been written by minds beyond me. You may agree, disagree, or think me delusional, but it’s what I believe. I hope you were asking sincerely and that this post communicates my position on those issues better. I'm interested in your thoughts.

#51973: — 12/04  at  05:11 PM
Dear Doctor,

Of course I'm sincere. I am trying my best to understand how any intelligent, well educated person living in the 21st century can possibly believe what you believe.

Have you read this link that was posted awhile back yet?
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

If so please let me know what you make of it and if not, please read it and then let me know what you think about it because the most perplexing type of Christian to me is a new world Christian like yourself.

So you can't accept that the universe could possibly come into existence without a cause yet you have no trouble accepting that God could come into existence without a cause. I don't understand how you can do that. To me, it's precisely and exactly the identical same thing, except for the added gigundo leap of faith tidbit that God has been here forever. How the heck could God come from nothing and why don't you have the same problem with that as you do with the universe coming from nothing?

If your God (that is the version of God that you believe in amongst the multitude of versions of God that humans have come up with thus far) has no beginning and created the universe 6,000 years ago, and you say he didn't create other worlds or universes before then, if he wasn't twiddling his thumbs (presuming he made us in his image and he even has thumbs to twiddle) what the heck do you think he was doing for a gazillion centuries times a gazillion centuries times a gazillion centuries and so on to infinity prior to the mere 6,000 years ago when he created the entire universe? Was he just asleep all that time? Playing solataire? Planning out his intelligent design idea? Seriously, can you just try and wrap your mind around that question for me please and take a poke at it? Or do you just default to the standard cop out answer of God didn't make us smart enough to understand the answers to those questions that logically challenge his existence?

So your answer to #3 is basically that global warming and other actions of man prior to that have always been the cause of earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Are you actually straight face serious about that?

By "your God's design" I was refering to the God you choose to believe in (the Christian version) and his so called intelligent design. I forgot for the moment that you don't believe in carbon dating and the fossil record. (And incidentally, in a very real way, since many Christians have come to admit the earth is a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years, their God would be of a different design version than yours and he would have a completely different role in our creation, so for you and all who think like you, yes your God is of your own design in terms of your interpretation of the bible today.) And of course, it still doesn't say squat about whether you are right or just sucked into one of the biggest hoaxes in history. Don't you ever wonder about that as a possiblity? Aren't there days you wake up or moments you have when you think that your whole paradigm is straight out of a science fiction story? If not, why not? It is pretty out there, don't you think?

As for birth defects, has there never been a recorded birth defect amongst clean living, God fearing, good, new earth Christian parents? And was it really the fault of man's past actions or God's will because he knows what's best for that child? It gets so confusing regarding who's to blame and what's God's plan for everything that happens, no?

As for not being able to answer the mother with the dying child question, your answer is just as I expected. The classic no can lose reply. Give God credit for the child who lives and say that God knows better when the child dies. C'mon man, how can you possibly buy into that nonsense? It's so transparently ridiculous. Can't you see that? It's foolproof, God can't lose no matter what happens since no matter what happen, it's what he wanted.

So some Christians have said that Hurricane Katrina was God's doing for the evil that was in New Orleans and other Christians have said it was Satan's doing. Which one of them do you think was behind it? How do you ever know when anything bad happens whether it is to be blamed on Satan or merely God knowing what's best?

And how can you possibly believe that if Hitler had accepted Jesus as his personal savior before he died that he would go to heaven whereas a genuinely good person who has been kind and loving and good for his entire life but had a different faith or even no faith at all would be damned to hell. I assume that's your take on this, right?

Do you have any issues with the promise of an eternal heaven and the penalty of burning in hell for all time for those who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Do you think that is a logical choice for a loving God to give those he had the power and ability to create out of thin air? Have you ever noticed that those are the 2 most extreme concepts possible that a human mind could come up with for such a reward penalty concept? No suspicion about that, huh? It says so in the bible and so it must be so, right? Who are you to question God's infinite wisdom, right? How do you people drink this Koolaid? Take a look at the calendar man...it's the 21st century!

Sorry, I didn't mean to get personal there. Looking forward to your reply.

#51975: — 12/04  at  05:32 PM
Just to clarify in case it appears that I am repeating my original second question to you in my latest post...this business about other worlds, planets, universes, heaven, hell or what have you that you consent God may have created, I am assuming that your position is that those too would have been created along with our current observable universe 6,000 years ago rather than prior to.

#51987: — 12/04  at  07:12 PM
Saul:

After reading your last post, I am not sure I am convinced that you are not trying to be sarcastic, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Most of the intelligent, well educated people living in history held to the divine in some form. Just because advances in the 21st century have improved technology (stuff), it has not nor ever in my opinion answer or remedied life’s concerns or problems. As I said before, I am very much aware of the “faith” component. Yes, I could be wrong. Yes, I have doubts. Yes, I struggle to comprehend. Yes, I question. But, I do that with all things. I once believed what I would imagine you believe and I would imagine just as strong. Today, I am in a different place. It’s hard to explain, but being where I am, I can’t imagine how any would believe anything else. I big piece of that is due to my personal experience. There are many people who believe what I believe. Some people are simple in their thoughts, others are well educated and intelligent. That is true of any worldview .

I will have to get back to you on the link.

I agree that the universe issue is precisely and exactly the identical same thing. That is why I don’t understand why folks have such a problem with people who believe in God. I think it’s a leap on both sides.

I never said the earth was created 6,000 years ago. There are actually about 6 to 8 different positions theologians take on the earth’s date. That was an assumption on your part. I never said he did or did not create anything before or after our universe. He may have. There is no way for me to know what He was doing before He created the universe. God is spirit and I believe He is beyond our naturalistic frame of reference. I can’t take a poke at it. Maybe He was doing all those things. Maybe, he was doing something else. If we were created with limited abilities ( I hope you can concede that), how can I know what is beyond us unless it was revealed by Him? I could speculate till the cows come home, but there is no way to know. I think that is logical and not a cop out. If you only trust your senses to inform you about reality and logic that is informed by your senses, how can you speculate to thinks that are not naturalistic? If I ask you a question that you don’t know the answer to, and you give an honest answer, “I don’t know”, how is that a cop out?

In regards to #3, I gave you examples, not all inclusive answers, as I said. There are more in depth answers to that. Do a search on scriptures, the bible, natural disasters, etc… You will get a variety of positions on that.

I never said I didn’t believe in carbon dating or the fossil record. You made that assumption. I just don’t draw the same conclusions as you. Sure, I wonder if my whole paradigm is real or not. My skepticism is the same skepticism that led me to question my paradigm, as an atheist, as an agnostic, as a humanist, as a new-ager, etc… . I didn’t just fall into where I am, and I can assure you my paranoia about organized religion and snake-handlers, I did not arrive here without critical thought. My goal is to seek Truth the best I can given my limitations whatever that Truth may be. This is where my search has led. Until something else makes more sense, this is where I will stay.

I am a skeptic by nature and pretty analytical. I doubt there is any thought or argument that I have not struggled with. Being God fearing does not mean you don’t experience the consequences of sin. I still experience the consequences of my past actions. I experience the consequences of other people’s actions. It does get confusing. Sometimes I wonder if God is at work, if Satan is at work or if my imagination is at work.


As for the suffering issue, the Christian theology is a no lose position for God. He gets credit for good, because all good things come from Him. If things go wrong, we trust there is a reason for Him allowing it.
Can you disprove it?


I do not think any of us are genuinely good. Whose standard are you using? According to scripture, we have all lied, stolen, lusted, etc… at some point in our lives ( Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, you and me). Everyone thinks they are basically a good person. People who do wrong feel justified and most don’t acknowledge it’s wrong. I doubt you could get ten people to say, “yeah, I’m, pretty much a rotten person, I’m going to hell.” Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? Have you ever lusted after someone? I doubt Hitler would have accepted Jesus for who he was. If he did, it is hard to fathom, but as I said, He is not a God of my design. To me, if that happened, it would be a demonstration of the love of God.

My understanding of love from a biblical perspective, is yes, heaven and hell make sense. I do not have an issue with it. I believe God gives us all a choice. We all have the ability to choose Him or choose our own way. We continue in relationship with Him or separation from Him. In the end, He gives us what we want.

I have and do question the Bible. Why do you assume that I don’t/didn’t? I critically think about everything. Because, I come to different conclusions doesn’t mean I have not thought about these things. I didn’t become a believer until I was 26. The Biblical characters question Him through out. The Bible is partly a testimony to man’s struggles in relationship to God, other men, and themselves. Have you ever read it with a truly open mind?

These posts are getting huge. I am losing track of what I am talking about. This is far from the intelligent design debate that’s for sure. It’s a bunch of stuff that just skims the surface. This feels really tangential. I hope some of this makes sense.

#52003: — 12/04  at  09:16 PM
Ransom: Are you denying the existence of such individuals as Ken Miller, who see no conflict whatsoever between the pursuit of science and religious beliefs?

It requires not only a non-materialistic worldview to reject evolution, but a strictly anti-materialistic one - you must assume that faith is superior to evidence, to maintain that belief after some honest investigation of the claims of both sides. The simple fact is that if ID means, to you "God is responsible", that doesn't have to conflict with science OR evolution. But if ID means, to you, "evolution is wrong", it does, especially if you go by the claims of Behe and Dembski and so on. They claim ID is science - but they won't tell how to test it, and they won't perform any tests. They say evolution is wrong - but they won't test their ideas of how it's wrong. So where's the science?

#52011: — 12/04  at  10:18 PM
Dear Doctor,

"I agree that the universe issue is precisely and exactly the identical same thing. That is why I don’t understand why folks have such a problem with people who believe in God. I think it’s a leap on both sides."

Nice try but not quite right. I was saying that from your perspective. From my perspective, the big bang was the cause and I know the universe exists because I live in it and I see it. We know the universe is expanding so it makes sense if you go backwards in time it would be contracting until you reach a point where it all converged to one central beginning. God on the other hand I cannot see and last I heard there are still no actual verified sightings of him to date. That's the difference and it's a gigantic one, plus I must reiterate the additional gigundo leap of faith you conveniently skipped over that God has been here "forever" as oppose to the universe only going back a finite 15 billion years. In other words there is proof the universe exists but there is no proof that God exists. God is nothing more than a theory to explain things that people couldn't explain in ancient times and for many, by tradition carries on today. But today we can explain many things if not all. Contrary to what you may "believe", a near unanimous concensus of scientists throughout the world "know" what the evidence shows. As testimony at the Dover trial best put it "science teaches that 2+2=4. If religion wants to teach that 2+2=5, that's ok, just don't do it in science class."

As for intelligent people going back in history believing in the divine in some form, that's understandable because a) going back in history we didn't know the things we know today, b) believing in some form of the divine is very different than believing in Christianity as "THE ONE AND ONLY WORD AND TRUTH AND ALL OTHERS ARE DIRECTLY ON THEIR WAY TO HELL". One of my key positions that rejects organized religion is the very fact that so many people can believe in so many different views of God and yet believe so equally strong in their version, that my conclusion is since they can't all be right, they are all wrong and it is merely their faith that makes it appear real to them. At best, IF there is some sort of divine entity or higher power, it is just as logical to assume that no religion has Him figured out quite right.

So you realize you could be wrong, hmmm, how about that? You are at least more honest than many Christians I know who claim they "know" they are right. So do you give 10% of your salery to the church? If so, I hope you're buying that ticket to heaven because if not, you'll have paid quite a lot for this fantasy. But then again, perhaps it doesn't even matter so long as it gives you the illusion of being on the inside track while you are alive.

As for the "I don't know answer", faith raises many more of those questions. Sorry but I have trouble with the concept of God having no beginning. I just can't seem to grasp that concept so I have trouble moving forward on that. Now you can't either but instead you choose to say oh well, no biggie, I'll just go with it anyways as I wouldn't want that to get in the way of my beliefs, oh no.

The difference between me saying I don't know and you saying you don't know is that when I say it, I don't have to answer to the kind of questions you do by consequence of your beliefs. I obviously don't know everything but there isn't anything that I don't know that compares to not knowing what your God was hypothetically doing for a gazillion brigillion centuries times a gazillion brigillion centuries times infinity centuries doubled to infinity times and again and again to infinity. Don't you get that's a really really really really long time? That's also a lot different than me saying I don't know what caused the big bang to happen because I know it or something very similar to it did indeed happen. You don't even "know" that God exists let alone having to not know how he can have no beginning. Isn't that a little different to you? No? Really?

You said you were an orthodox Christian so naturally I assumed you believed in the literal interpretation of the bible and it's primitive kindergarten level assumption that the earth is literally only 6,000 years old. Of course in the days that the bible was written they didn't really have much experience with the fossil record so it wasn't an issue. So the fact that they got that all wrong in the bible was no biggie...the solution was to just redefine the word "day" in the book of Genesis so as to fit however long scientists determine it was so that Genesis can still be true. But then of course you end up with 6 or 8 different versions to choose from based on differing interpretations reconciling the bible with or without modern day scientific discoveries. And then there's the literal and non literal interpretations of so much in the bible. If only the interpretation of the entire bible only boiled down to 6 or 8 different versions, there would be less disagreement between all the different spin off churches. By the way, so which version of the 6 or 8 versions of how old the universe is do you subscribe to and what conclusions do you come to based on carbon dating and the fossil record that differ from mine?

"My goal is to seek Truth the best I can given my limitations whatever that Truth may be. This is where my search has led. Until something else makes more sense, this is where I will stay." Ah, so you are basing your life on a set of beliefs you realize may be false and that you may change your mind again as you have changed your mind many times in the past. See, again, there's the rub. It is only your believing that makes it real for you. Certainly others have believed in Christianity and then they have changed their minds and left the church. There is no way you will ever know or can ever know that what you believe isn't just all a house of cards based on ancient and primitive notions. The problem with science vs ID is that science exposes religion for what it is...a house of cards with ZERO proof, just a bunch of pie in the sky what ifs.

As for the no lose God position, no I can't disprove it. To me, it's just a simplistic stupid position to have and it defies the logic in every fiber of my being. Of that, I have no doubt.

I don't know about you my friend, but in my mind I am good. Other than what you by now have sensed as my having a certain degree of hostility towards organised religion and all of the trouble it has caused in the history of this world, I believe I am genuinely a good person. I don't sin. I love life and my life is good. I am grateful every morning I wake up for the opportunity to experience life another day. To me, it is like I am already living in heaven right now.

I am married but if I see an attractive woman or actress in a movie I may look at her and think she's hot. But I don't act on that. Is that lust? I don't think that's a sin. That's just the way man is. We have reproduced our species thus far based on our attraction to the opposite sex and it's a natural thing, it's not an evil thing. I don't steal. I don't lie, at least not about anything important or of any consequence. I don't believe that I do anything that even if there were a God watching me, he would disapprove of. And the notion that my not accepting Jesus as my personal savior is all that matters seems so childish to me that I remain baffled by those who think otherwise. My only explanation is that there are either a lot of unhappy people in this world who need faith or a lot of people who have been brought up in this world to believe in it. After all, it has been around for a long time and old habits are hard to break. Look at the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a good example of that.

Don't you see the double edged sword with the heaven and hell deal. Boy, sure a nice bonus for buying into all this stuff huh? And boy, sure a nasty penalty for not! I'd sure hate to be you and worried about changing my mind with the worry that if you make the wrong decision, opps, down the shaft you go...better bring lots of sunscreen, I hear it's pretty hot down there. C'mon doctor.

In an episode of "Extras" on HBO a couple weeks back an atheist character gets introduced to another character who has muscular dystrophy. The handicapped person is telling the atheist how wonderful her life is going to be when she gets to heaven when she asks him if he believes in heaven. Rather than lower her hopes any, he says yes knowing that she's better off believing in it. That's the case for many Christians. They are busy hoping for a better life to come rather than enjoying the one they know is here now. Perhaps their faith becomes their main source of joy. So ok, that's good for them I guess but it still has nothing to do with objective reality as we know it.

Yes, our posts have become lengthy but I don't think we're that far off the main topic. The real topic is essentially a debate over the difference between faith and facts. We are both passionate about our positions and we strongly disagree with each other. We are however rapidly approaching a point of no return where we will merely have to agree to disagree and move on. I think we are likely going to approach that point soon, don't you?

#52014: — 12/04  at  10:44 PM
Hey Doctor,

One more question before I sign off for the night...

Do you think a representative from the science community should attend church services and be given an opportunity to get up in front of the congregation at the start of the sermon and present facts about evolution as an alternative explanation to the Christian creation theory or would that seem a bit inappropriate to you? It's really pretty much the very same thing with science vs ID in science class. Although science and religion may manage to find common ground and mix well for some, they do not mix well for most and each belongs in it's own place.

You know, you really aught to go see the Dawrin exhibition now on display at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. It might open your eyes. In fact, I think all Christians should go see it.

#52086: — 12/05  at  10:54 AM
Sotek:

I consider myself an integrationist and believe science and religious beliefs do not have to be in conflict. However, whereas some may hold science as dominant to inform faith, I hold faith dominant to inform science. I think that’s Kierkegard. I forget. As stated before, we will have to agree to disagree. I disagree with your assertion that it requires not only a non-materialistic worldview to reject evolution, but a strictly anti-materialistic one. ID means to me "God is responsible," however, I do not think all ID folks claim “God” is responsible, rather an intelligence is responsible, whatever that intelligence may be. Maybe, there is a conspiracy to use that to slip creationism into public schools. but, I believe there are scientists who hold the theory in and of itself. I do not believe “God is responsible” means it has to conflict with science. However, I do not consider evolution science, only a tentative theory. If people insist evolution is fact and needs to be included in science class, ID should get a voice in the classroom too. I think evolution and ID are theories only.

#52094: — 12/05  at  11:23 AM
Saul:

“the big bang was the cause…”

How do you know? What scientific evidence can you present as absolute proof? Where you there? Can you repeat it? We are starting to go in circles, So yes, I guess we are close to the end of our discourse.. Is it possible that there is more than the observable world? I admitted I could be wrong? Are you willing to admit your worldview could be off and you could be wrong?

“God on the other hand I cannot see and last I heard there are still no actual verified sightings of him to date.”

What form of Him would you be willing to accept as valid? If you did see Him, I believe you would doubt Him. Jesus was tangible and claimed to be God, and He was crucified for it. They said show me, He gave them signs and wonders and he was accused of being a devil, magician and a hoaxster. If God showed up today, people would continue to say “yeah, right.” If He gave you a sign, I bet you would say, “it’s a hoax or there has to be a natural explanation.” A mind and heart unwilling to accept the things of God logically will not accept the things of God. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

“That's the difference and it's a gigantic one, plus I must reiterate the additional gigundo leap of faith you conveniently skipped over that God has been here "forever"

I don’t get your issue with that, but OK.

“there is no proof that God exists. “

There is no proof God exists to you, because you have not experienced Him. I have, as well as many others today and throughout history. Just because your ears have not picked up the frequency, it does not mean others have not or that He doesn’t exist. I understand that you would not be able to relate to that, because it is beyond your experience. It does not mean it is not real.

God is nothing more than a theory … If religion wants to teach that 2+2=5, that's ok, just don't do it in science class."

I disagree, and do not share the same conclusions you do based on scientific studies. 2+2 always does equal four or the Truth. Reputable scientists disagree over scientific studies and theories all the time. Your conclusions are not the only possible conclusions.

”One of my key positions that rejects organized religion is the very fact that so many people can believe in so many different views of God and yet believe so equally strong in their version, that my conclusion is since they can't all be right, they are all wrong and it is merely their faith that makes it appear real to them. “

I agree 2+2 always equals 4, but some answers are closer than others. CS Lewis said that (favorite author). I put your worldview into that as well. If there is an objective single Truth out there, and if someone is humbly and honestly seeking Truth, then it is only a matter of time before they find it. I agree not all religions can be right. There are too many that are diametrically opposed. I believe there is one single spiritual or religious Truth. People can err in the subjective and/or objective reality of that Truth. “Mere Christianity”, “The Case for Faith”, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” are all good apologetics for the Christian faith

“At best, IF there is some sort of divine entity or higher power, it is just as logical to assume that no religion has Him figured out quite right.”

I agree unless He reveled Himself in some way. As far as I know, no person ever claimed to be God (at least not with any credibility of any sort). Others people/faiths have claimed to know a path to God, to know God, declared something about God, or something to be God, but not to be God. That is unique to Jesus. The rest is conjecture. Who do you say that Jesus is?

”So you realize you could be wrong, hmmm, how about that? You are at least more honest than many Christians I know who claim they "know" they are right. “

There are many people in every worldview that claim to “know” they are right and do not examine their beliefs or values. That is true for Christians, materialists or anyone. I think it’s all tentative. Yes, I tithe. It is an expression of my thanks to God for His work in my life and to carry on the mission of the church (to minister to people in need, share the Good News, and disciple believers). I give 30% to the goofy government, what’s 10% to God? I don’t believe money gives me a ticket to heaven (faith alone does that) any more than taxes get me in the White House. People tithe to the DNC and GOP all the time. Is that any less silly? To borrow from Pascal, according to you, if I am wrong, I’m just worm food like everybody else. But if your wrong, you are separated from God for a brigillion gazillion centuries times infinity twiddling your thumbs. But, ultimately God makes that judgment, not me.

”As for the "I don't know answer", faith raises many more of those questions. Sorry but I have trouble with the concept of God having no beginning. I just can't seem to grasp that concept so I have trouble moving forward on that. Now you can't either but instead you choose to say oh well, no biggie, I'll just go with it anyways as I wouldn't want that to get in the way of my beliefs, oh no.”

You do the same with the acceptance of an uncaused universe, the big bang, etc… What have you accepted that gets in the way of your beliefs? Have you read and considered the Bible with an open and humble mind? Or would that get in the way with your beliefs? You did not answer that last time.

At many points I do believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. I believe it is possible earth is only 6,000 years old. I believe it is possible it’s older. I also believe carbon dating may be accurate, it may also be inaccurate. It is irrelevant to my beliefs. The fossil record does not disprove anything in the Bible, nor does any scientific evidence. Are you a Hebrew or Greek scholar? How do you now what the word “day” means?


”Ah, so you are basing your life on a set of beliefs you realize may be false”

You do they same thing, only I don’t think you realize the limitations of your own worldview and beliefs. Are you willing to change your mind? Many people have been atheists and left the materialistic worldview behind. I hope you can be honest enough to at least be an agnostic. People change positions all the time, because there are valid arguments on many fronts. Otherwise, there would be no debate.

I appreciate your dialog with me here. It has made me realize, the beef with ID may not so much be the theory or possibilities of ID in and of itself, but rather what you perceive is behind it or where it might lead. Although you have some criticisms of ID, I think the real problem for you is the Christian faith. No?


”As for the no lose God position, no I can't disprove it. To me, it's just a simplistic stupid position to have and it defies the logic in every fiber of my being. Of that, I have no doubt.”

I understand that, and have been there myself.

You say you don’t have an issue with me being delusional, if that is what I believe, but you are hostile to organized religion, which I oppose to a degree as well. So, why are you hostile to organized religion? What has organized religion done to you? Trouble in the world? Again, it is men in the name of religion that have caused trouble, not the faith. To me that is like saying because Nazi scientists experimented on Jewish people, science should be thrown out. That’s too simplistic. The Nazis were horrible and wrong, just as “Muslim” terrorists are wrong, as were the “Christian” inquisition folks were wrong. It does not make the faith wrong. You say you do not sin, yet admit to lying. Someone who lies, is usually called a liar. That is bearing false witness. Jesus said, if you even think it in your mind, you have already committed adultery. If that’s true, you are an adulterer. It doesn’t make it right. You have never taken anything in your life that was not yours? That’s pretty uncommon. If you have that would make you a thief. That’s his standard, not mine. From birth, we are self seeking and natural man continues in his nature because of his choice and free will. If you are right and are 100% confident, then continue in your life and convictions and you have no need for forgiveness. If there is a God, stand before him and say so when the time comes. I believe what I believe. I think I’m right, and I encourage other people to consider the Bible and the Christian faith. It’s your choice. What you believe and do in life is between you and God. You asked, so I am trying to explain what I believe and why. I share with those who are open to it.

Maybe religion is an opiate for the masses as Lenin or Marx asserted. I have peace, love others more, and have a hope for the future. If there is nothing out there, nothing matters anyway. I enjoy my life here and expect better later. It is my experience and it is real. It is founded on objective reality, logic, subjective experience and God’s revelation. If you can’t relate, it’s not your experience, and you choose a different set of beliefs, continue to live your life, and let people of faith live theirs. I am not asking you to renounce your worldview, even though I disagree with it. I am not asking that your worldview be taken out of education. If we need to agree to disagree, I’m OK with that. I do appreciate you at least attempting to try and understand me as an individual, and not a backwoods hillbilly hate filled huckster. At least, I hope that is not your opinion.

“Do you think a representative from the science community should attend church services and be given an opportunity to get up in front of the congregation at the start of the sermon and present facts about evolution as an alternative explanation to the Christian creation theory”

If by “should” you mean have discourse or debate in church, sure. Yes, people should be exposed to it. It happens all the time and most people in the US (even the ones who attend church) get more than a healthy dose of it in school and higher education. If by “should” you mean require, then no. I don’t see it as the same thing. Education is compulsory in the United States. People who can not afford to choose where their children are educated have to attend public schools and the state indoctrinates and forces children to learn evolution theory without any competing ideas. ID should get a voice. Church attendance is not compulsory, so evolution should not be required there.

The British Museum and Louvre are excellent museums for the consideration of the archeological evidence for the historicity of the people and communities in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Your not gonna get any of that in public education.

#52321: — 12/06  at  02:16 AM
Dear Doctor,

I think we may have succeeded in chasing everyone else off this thread now...either that or they're just letting us duke it out.

No, I wasn't there for the big bang, I'm not quite that old. No, I can't recreate it and there is really no need to. As I said in my prior post, it is perfectly logical to me that since we know that the universe is still expanding in all directions, going backwards in time it would contract to the point where it was all at one central place. That makes a lot more sense to me than your God snapping his fingers (again assuming he has fingers to snap) and poof, just like that the entire universe appeared 6,000 years ago (or how ever many years ago you believe it was), just like magic.

Say, speaking of which, are you finished reading that link yet...I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Am I willing to admit my world view could be wrong? I'll tell you this much, if it is, it ain't anywhere near as wrong as yours. That's my opinion. I'm a heck of a lot closer to reality than you are.

Would I accept God if I could see him? Sure but then that would make me the first person in history to do so (aside from those who thought they saw him in one form or another but were only fooling themselves).

Please don't talk to me about Jesus as if you know what Jesus was based on events that supposedly happened over 2,000 years ago. The bible is full of stories and who knows how misinterpreted or rearranged those stories may have been or may have become since the time they happened.

Look pal, I think that if God truly existed in a place beyond the hopes and imagination of those who want to believe it to be true so much that they convince themselves he does, he could easily show the world a sign or two or ten and help bring us into line. But does he ever? I mean a real no fooling, no having to read into this event or that event to riddle me this? Heck no, not once, not ever. Only in the minds of the imagination has God ever appeared.

"Without faith it's impossible to please God." Who ever said I'm here to please God? I believe when you do something nice for someone, especially out of love, you're not supposed to do it because you expect to get something in return. Something nice in return may happen if the person you do it for wants to do something nice back but when you do it expecting to get something nice back in return and it doesn't happen, it only reveals that your intentions weren't sincere and honorable to begin with. What type of an ego tripping God would create us on the condition that we worship him and accept some guy who thought he was his son or else he's going to send us to burn in hell for a gabrillion zillion centuries times infinity? Get real, man. How can that make any sense to you? What, because the bible says so? Man, you're sure banking a lot on that one book, aren't you?

Of course you don't get my issue with the no beginning issue. A mind and heart filled with faith can't understand anything that challenges that faith.

You have experienced God huh? Since you've already admitted to me that you could be wrong, obviously you're not really, really sure that it wasn't just your faith and mind at play.

2+2=4. Nearly EVERY scientist alive and EVERY Scientific institution on earth believes in evolution. There may be some disputes among scientist, sure, that's all part of the process. To present theories and test them in peer reviewed journals to see if they hold up. Unfortunately, ID only has a faith based theory with absolutely nothing to test and no way to prove it. By definition of the word, that's not science. Since it's a free country though, it is not against the law to teach that 2+2=5 in theology or religion classes.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you were born into another faith in another country with family and/or friends and/or neighbors and/or relatives who believed and practised that faith, that you would likely believe that faith instead of Christianity and believe it as strongly as you believe in Christianity today?

Taxes, as the saying goes, like life and death are inevitable. The 10% that you and those like you have been suckered into giving to the church only assists and allows it to maintain it's power over you and others like you. And make you dues-paying members in a big ol' gigundo cult. That's what I think it does.

Who do I say Jesus was? He was a guy somewhat like you and me with 2 arms, 2 legs, a penis and all the rest, who lived 2,000 years ago and believed he was the son of God. Like Darwin, he had a theory about man and in his day, just having a theory was good enough. Because it took awhile for man to evolve to the point where we could discover the truth about our creation, or at least much of the scientific proof that we have discovered in relatively recent times, Jesus' theory thrived for a long time and grew in popularity as did other religous theories throughout the world. And because of that and the place in time where we are at today, and the need that faith provides for many, those old religion theories are still hanging around.

Regarding what if you're right vs what if I'm right, as I said before, I'd really hate to be you faced with that awful dilema of even thinking about turning your back on your faith now and torturing yourself over the chance of going to hell for a gabillion centuries. I don't have those worries because it makes absolutely no sense at all to me that a loving God powerful enough to create us by snapping his fingers would have that as his plan. Now perhaps if he were an ego tripping sadistic God, maybe that would be a possibility. It's all a control thing, don't you get it? How can you not get it? I know, it's not your fault, you've been brainwashed.

Right, men doing bad in the name of religion has nothing to do with the religion itself. Just like the no lose God situation with the dying child example, God gets all the credit for the good he does with his followers but none of the blame for those who do bad in his name. Boy, you make it easy for him.

The Nazi scientists who experimented on Jews did not do so out of scientific interests my friend, they did it out of their hatred for Jewish people to humiliate them while they were in the process of trying to exterminate them. Not exactly a good example to make your point.

Admit to lying...if I tell my wife a meal she cooked is absolutely delicious when perhaps it may not really be that absolutely delicious but it makes her feel good to hear me say that, is that such a terrible lie to you?

If you even think it, you have committed adultry? Get outta Dodge pal. Jesus was wrong. There's an enormous difference between thinking another woman other than your wife is attractive and actually commiting adultry....and that is part of our humanity...the ability to decide what thoughts we choose to act upon.

What I do in this life is between me and those in my life, not between me and God. If God put me here and he knows my heart, he knows I am a good person. If God would send me to hell for being a good person but not accepting Jesus as my personal savior, then I don't want to go to his heaven.

What the heck do you mean if nothing is out there, then nothing matters anyway? Your life, my life, everyone's life, here and now, must mean something, no? Remember, you are open to the possibility that this world may be all there is even if you are hedging your bet.

#52672: — 12/07  at  01:35 PM
Saul:

It seems we are just going in circles, and I really do need to finish my dissertation. I appreciated you taking the time to read my posts and respond. It looks like we will continue to disagree. I also appreciated your more civil tone compared to at lot of other folks out there. It is hard to take seriously someone who's only argument is "your a poop-y head." It will be interesting to see how the intelligent design movement plays out in the scientific community, the nation and the larger international community.

Several times, I have asked if you have read the Bible with a humble and open mind. Each time, you did not reponsd. So, I have included the Good News from “the 4 Spiritual Laws” for your consideration. Josh McDowell, argued a person and book with such a profound influence on the world and history should be at least considered.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) (Christ speaking) "I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly." (John 10:10) Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's Love and plan for his life. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his stubborn self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken. "For the wages of sin is death." (spiritual separation from God) (Romans 6:23) Simply stated, God is Holy, man is sinful. A great gulf separates the two. Man is continually trying to reach God, or become righteous and worthy in his eyes, through his own efforts. These efforts include, but are not limited to: leading a good life (being nice), being works centered, and immersing him/herself in philosophy and religion. The Bible teaches that there is only on way to bridge the gap between God and man... Jesus is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience God's love and plan for your life. He Died in Our Place. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) "Christ died for our sins...He was buried...He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures...He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred..." (I Corinthians 15:3-6) He Is the Only Way to God. "Jesus said, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father, but through Me'" (John 14:6) God has bridged the gulf which separates us from Him by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty for our sins. We must individually receive Jesus as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God's Love and plan for our lives. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12) We Must Receive Christ Through Faith. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" ( Ephesians 2:8-9) “ If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from death, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) When We Receive Christ, We Experience a New Birth. (Christ speaking) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." ( John 3:5) We Receive Christ by Personal Invitation. (Christ speaking) "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." (Revelation 3:20) Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will.

“ Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

God’s love has given us free will. We are free to do as we please. I would encourage you to at least give this an honest examination and then make your choice to accept or reject it.

Take care,

#52781: — 12/07  at  10:35 PM
Dear Doctor,

You are a poop-y head. Thanks for the exchange though just the same. You seemed intelligent enough to know better. I hope you wake up one day and see the bible for what it really is.

And to answer your favorite question, no I have not read the entire bible. Reading Genesis was enough for me.

It's all good, Saul Good.

#52940: Wolf Halton — 12/08  at  01:22 PM
I got about a 10th of the way down the blog comments and decided to make a comment. Is it my imagination, or are the protagonists of ID saying that they firmly believe that scientists are claiming to have all the answers? I thought that the scientific method was concerned much more with finding interesting questions rather than definitive answers.

Seems like the ID people are very concerned with being able to settle this thing once and for all and are extremely upset that the only constant in the universe they can experience is the persistent change.

Science is interested in that which can be tested by experimentation. Given that a statement from a historical text can only be tested from the standpoint of its accuracy in regard to empirical test data or its veracity based on contemporary and modern texts, ID is not susceptible to testing by the scientific method.

Being insusceptible to testing does not make ID false. It is the large amount of biological testing on "real world" subjects that call its veracity into question.

The hard part here seems to be that the Book of Revelations stated that "this book" is the true and uncontrovertible word of God. This was, by the way, only a reference to the book of Revelations when it was written so. At that point in history there was no KJV, or any other bound compendium of Christian faith.

Why are we not having 800-page debates about the viability of ID as it regards geology? Geology was not a science at all before James Hutton presented the Principle of Uniformitarianism. In 1785, Hutton presented at the meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh that the Earth had a long history and that this history could be interpreted in terms of processes currently observed. He suggested that deep soil profiles were formed by the weathering of bedrock over thousands of years. He also suggested that supernatural theories were not needed to explain the geologic history of the Earth. (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10c.html)

Geology is just as abusive to the Genesis view...

By the way, the writers of Genesis would have gotten Fs for plagarism. The creation story is a direct lift from the creation story from Sumer.

#53143: — 12/09  at  12:45 PM
Wolf, interesting post. I was not aware of Sumer.

Dear Doctor, if you check back here again, and I imagine you will, see the link below and share your thoughts about it. As I replied back to your repeated question, please also reply back to mine regarding your thoughts on the radiometric dating link.

I guess in the end, my biggest question of all to you would be, of all that is out there, of everything that has been written and all that man has discovered, what is it about the bible that makes you think it's the only source of truth and everything else that contradicts it is false?

http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html

#53256: Wolf Halton — 12/10  at  12:02 AM
<quote>I guess in the end, my biggest question of all to you would be, of all that is out there, of everything that has been written and all that man has discovered, what is it about the bible that makes you think it's the only source of truth and everything else that contradicts it is false?</quote>

Self-referential authority is the beginning of a slippery slope, indeed.