Science is about open-minded inquiry

It's not the intelligent design that bothers most atheists, it's the fact that most religions demand honesty and honor be included in the life of those following the teachings. Both traits interfere drastically with political correctness, making theology the enemy. Intelligent design and evolution are in no way contradictory. Theology and political correctness are.

Well stated patricia...:-)

PT, you have it completely backwards. Atheist HAVE a problem with the idea of any deity, and therefore intelligent design. Morality is not the issue.

If the evolutionist admits that there are a specific set of laws that the universe operates on, then how can they deny the Law Giver who set it all in motion. It's a clear case of selective interpretation on their part. Intelligent Design and morality go hand in hand because if God is the absolute authority, then His laws need to be followed and relative morality flies out the window. This is the basis of the evolutionists' irrational rejection of anything that suggests intelligent order in the universe.

Again, you've missed the point morality does not exisit becasue you believe in some law giver.

I found it curious that people like the letter writer cite what they believe is scant evidence for evolution without failing to acknowledge that there is NO evidence of a Creator.

What a load of crap you people are dishing today. Intelligent design is not science by any court of law or by the vast majority of scientists on the planet. Define "design". The design is "nature" designs-life modulates itself. How can you question that with the evidence of our modern food crops and domesticated animals. Scientist are asking how has life come about on earth and theologians address why-different questions and different domains. Religion and science are not at odds just addressing different issues. When Einstein denied the conclusions of his work and thought the universe was infinite and there had to be a cosmological constant, it was a catholic priest who studied his work and concluded that the Universe had a beginning he called the cosmic egg (this was before the Big Bang became a notion). While Darwin was captivated by transitional forms modern scientists have found transitional forms and found evidence of rapid jumps. Evolution has been retraced by molecular manipulation to reproduce transitional forms in some plants. Hybridizing some plants has created completely new forms with traits unlike either parent and able to live in habitats unlike either parent.

"Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense."

http://www.venganza.org/

Go, and be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Bizarro, have you ever heard of irreducible complexity? Since evolution is a taxpayer funded THEORY you try explaining how the eye developed through transitional forms. You give great examples of micro-evolution and jump to a conclusion of factuality for macro-evolution. Has a dog ever been observed to reproduce a non-dog? Were are the vast transitional forms that even Darwin admitted must surely exist if his theory were true? If you ask me, It takes much more FAITH to believe that a complex world came from a rock than from an even more complex Creator !

I watched a documentary yesterday where scientists were condemning the idea of faith without evidence. Then I saw these same scientists involved with the SETI project (searching for evidence for ET). They are spending millions on radiotelescopes, computers, etc. because of their belief in life somewhere in outer space. Although after years of searching, they still find absolutely no evidence that life exists anywhere in the universe except earth. Therefore, these scientists are working solely on faith and belief alone, and demand the right (and funding) to do so. Yet, these very same people are the ones who are so quick to condemn others for any faith and belief in an "extraterrestial" God. Are these highly educated people so blind that they can't see the hypocrisy in their beliefs and demands?

At this point, there is no explanation for how the universe began. Science does not know what caused the Big Bang and brought the laws of physics into existence. Therefore, the hypothesis of a Creator / Creative Intelligence behind it is just as plausible as the idea of blind random chance or some other untestable hypothesis. Only arrogance and prejudice seek to rule out any hypothesis before it can be tested. I have read many accounts of cosmologists and astrophysicists stating that they are now more than willing to admit that the existence of a Creator is a possibility. It's a shame that less informed people deny this possibility even before considering the evidence.

Well imdstuf the notion that life spontaneously arose on earth is just as mythical and against all observations of biology-life doesn't spontaneously arise, but this is considered a special case by some. Many also believe there is no possiblity life arose on earth-some like Doolittle who are giants in science and molecular biology. Evolution doesn't begin with Genesis or the beginning. It starts with the hypothetical Universal Common Ancestor which consensus believes it already a complex organism(s) and gene pool. Evolvability arose and different means of this process arose like sex, kin selection, etc. I think people mostly confuse what is fact and what is theory. Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact. How gravity works by Newtonian mass attraction or Relativity bending space time are theoretical addresses. Natural selection and genetic drift are theoretical processes how evolution works. Why is because God created it that way-hee,hee,hee. Stephen Wolfram has proposed cellular automata to explain evolution without the necessity of natural selection. Gravity is a fact but how we think it works will no doubt be addressed again-the same for evolution. So accept the fact.

Physicist aren't biologist nor the other way around. I have no doubt some naive physicists discount evolution, but few biologist of any credibility discount evolution. It would be like a biologist saying I don't believe Einstein's general relativity because they are naive to the facts and don't understand the math.

I don't think anyone can deny the reality of evolution (at least microevolution). It's all around us. It's the way the world works, in a biological sense. Where it fails is in explaining how life began. As was said, life could not have just "happened". Once there was life, then certainly there are many aspects of evolutionary theory that took over. I think the problem occurs when the claim is made that life and the universe are here strictly because of naturalistic phenomena. The logical conclusion: Well, if it's not a natural beginning, then it must be "supernatural". Many people recoil from even the suggestion of a supernatural or transcendent creation event, and are even more horrified at the implication that there might be a Creator behind it all. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of such a Creator. The "problem" with a Creator is that if indeed such an all-powerful being exists, then He (It ?) has every right to tell us how to live our lives. So, in the end, the problem is not science or truth; it's human pride and stubbornness. If there is a God, then we MUST obey. We don't like that, do we? So much easier to deny God's existence than follow His commands.

Quote:
"Science cannot prove or refute the existence of such a Creator. "

And religion cannot prove or refute the veracity of evolution.

Stalemate

Indeed. There is no reason to refute the veracity of evolution, as much of it is scientific truth. The problem is making the false assumption that naturalistic, evolutionary materialism must account for life on earth. That belief, which is demanded by many, comes from first making a conclusion (there cannot be a God) and then trying to conform the data to "prove it". That's just the opposite of how science is supposed to work, and sadly, is the path many follow. Evolution, though true in many aspects, cannot explain how life got here, and why SETI (even after years of seeking) can find absolutely no evidence that life has "evolved" elsewhere in the universe. Yet they are determined to keep looking up in "faith". Most scientific conclusions are based not on certainty, but on probability. The "most likely" interpretation often becomes "truth". That's why you have to be so careful when evaluating what is proven and what is still theory. Until science can PROVE there is no God (which it will never be able to do), then you must respect that possibility. Unless, of course, your world view cannot accept even the slightest chance that God exists. Many (most?) scientists can't accept it.

Good post howcanweknow. Questions I have is why do we have a free will? Why did God give us a mind if not to understand him and his universe? Why of all the other animals (that we share similar traits in language, using tools, etc) only one species has the inquisitive nature and skills to try and understand and even have success? What was before the universe and what is beyond the universe-the universe is expanding into what? Why is there a universe? Why did we of all the animals come to a belief of gods and myth-why is there God? Why don't the complexity of genomes equate with the complexity of organisms-genome size nor gene count equate to complexity in multicellular organims? Science is always transient truth because it is open ended-we keep testing the theories and finding evidence that supports or refute the notions-it does not prove "how" with impunity just suggests this possible mechanism, and it keeps open to other mechanisms. Just like the universe went from an infinite steady state with hydrogen to later form heavier elements to a big bang, inflation, separation of the four forces (gravity first), and then the formation of matter.

Biz, you said a mouthful. There are no scientific answers to your questions, which makes these same questions so intriguing and profound. As many say, science can only explain the HOW, but never the WHY. We can describe the neural processes whereby a person can think about God, but can in no way explain why that person would even conceptualize a supreme being. And you know what, I'm OK with that. I love science, but I accept its limitations too. I deeply respect the Bible, but know that it was never written to be a scientific text (although there is some pretty darn amazing scientific stuff in it!). I guess it all comes down to truth. Science seeks truth. The Bible claims to be truth. Moreover, Jesus Christ said that he WAS the truth. So, shouldn't the preacher and the professor both be on the same team? If we're all after truth, then we should be working together and learning from each other, and not be at each other's throats.

Actually that's not true. We understand the basis of hallucination (the receptors LSD binds to) so the existence of a suspectibility to belief shaped by social pressure is easily explicable. Not to say that God is a hallucination but one cannot establish His existence by the process of exclusion. Madness and faith can be explained by pretty much the same biology. I suspect He knows this and uses it to His advantage. Desiring to be known only by faith, a creator God would design a system that is basically self-perpetuating, adaptive to it's environment and arises from the basic constiutents of it's world. Large changes would occur under periods of rapid activity or chemical flux, in which a 1 in a million event could easily occur among 20 million randomly occuring events. Thus His hand could guide the outcome and never be seen. If faith is defined as believing in that which you cannot physically percieve, the evolving world would constrain you to leap beyond your senses to touch the face of God. In my own faith walk, I believe this is precisely what He's after.

PWUO, are you saying that God has pre-programmed our neuronal circuitry with the desire to seek Him? I would tend to agree with that statement. As someone once said, everyone has a "God-shaped" hole in the heart, and we spend a lifetime trying to fill this hole with any number of substitutes; but, only God can truly fill it properly.

In the year of our Lord, 2008. Atheists will never be able to overcome that one, will they? Do those who disbelieve in Jesus use a different calendar?

Actually there are those with that belief howcanweknow (belief is biological) even Dawkins recognizes religions as evolved memes. Molecular mutations and evolution are considered neutral-chance changes. However while the mutation maybe neutral where they occur is not. After sequencing over 800 genomes we recognize hot spots along chromosomes and genomes for mutation. There are also regions with 100% conservation across species in chordates. Why are some regions susceptible or predisposed to change is a good question (not all traits can mutate and change). I can see why some would be resistant to change if lethal, and I understand proximity to centromeres offers resistance, but why are some animals hyper-evolvable and some relatively resistant in the same habitat. I was truly surprised by the sequencing of a living marine fossil worm genome. Many scientist were expecting a simple genome with some hint of how things evolved, but what was found was a complex genome with many human-like genomic elements. Even bacteria have sex and Muller's ratchet always hypothesized that asexual organims would be limited evolutionarily, however some rotifers are quite diverse despite a lack of sex.

ID is not only unscientific but also philosophically nonsensical as are all teleological argguments: they assume what they must first show that there is design and then a designer. We do not see designs but patterns; one reads onto them the pareidolia that one sees divinity behind them as one sees Yeshua in a tortilla. Existence is eternal. All religious experience is just.ones own mental experience. Natural processes are the sufficient reason for every event. Google skeptic griggsy[ skepticgriggsy, griggs1947] to see that he is a d, right on! Oh, the divine protecxtion racket ! Selah!

Yep these rotifers haven't had sex in 50 million years. So guys if your wife cuts you off for a while don't sweat it. I suspect these rotifers are highly neurotic. Some rotifers respond to feeding pressures by exhibiting protruding horns. So yes some of the rotifers are extremely horny. hee,hee,hee. Actually this isn't evolution because no genetic change occurs only an epigenetic change.

That is what Stephen Wolfram has demonstrated that following simple rules that random changes can produce patterns and order-it fits well in animal coat patterning. He gets all egomaniacal and then says this negates natural selection. I agree because there is design does not presuppose a designer. I should also quip to scientist that because there is life on this planet (and some say "intelligent life" although I'm dubious) doesn't equate to life on any other planet. We can't say the universe is so large or outside the universe is unknown as an argument for the possibility of God nor the same for alien life. You can believe there is a God in the universe and you can believe there is alien life. Big Foot told Lizard Man who told me. Now there maybe life in another multiverse or another dimension. Well I know there is because that is where Bizarro is from hee,hee.

We can know by trial and error , by using reason and facts rather than through the supernatural and paranormal . As Dawkins would note, scientists have something to inform us about while theologians just guess. Science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of knowledge as Sydney Hook so notes. Faith also begs the question of its subject and is only the I just say so of credulity.
Such as haughty John L. Haught chides us naturalists for not conceding that there might be other venues of knowledge but he provides no evidence for such!
Such temerity!

I would add Richard Dawkins is a [filtered word] poor egomaniacal scientist. He has published less than a dozen peer reviewed papers. He prefers books and other unreviewed venues to express his ideas, which by the way are pure crap. Many of his ideas like selfish genes are untestable hypotheses and unfalsifiable. Further he wasn't even addressing genes but the abundance of what was thought "junk DNA". Turns out its not junk and the basic premise is false. Wolfram and Dawkins are both full of crap or better stated themselves. I am biased because I always sided with Gould over Dawkins in their debates. There are different kinds and definitions of knowledge but epistemology (four domains) is beyond the scope of this forum-ie the difference between biological and philosophical religious definitions of knowledge. I have always thought "supernatural" an oxymoron. If it occurs in nature it is natural-it maybe a rare event but it occured. It is the perception which defines it as supernatural. A meteor falls from the sky because it just happens on occassion or a meteor falls at just the precise moment of a religious ceremony and it is a sign from God.

Biazarro, Dawkins made his name with the selfish gene! His ideas are in league with science.He is gracious even with the shallow Alister McGrath!
Gould so errs with hs no magesterial overlap: science and religion do conflilct as science shows that whatever theory scientists propose for the eternal Universe, it ovewhelms creation ex nihilo. To posit a divine creation or mere divine sustaining is so beyond reason!

Wrong again skeptic. He is scientist in name only as now he spends his time mostly arguing over religion. Having a Ph.D in science doesn't make you a scientist. Having an untestable hypothesis isn't science no more than a belief in God. Einstein could not fathom the meaning of his discovery and it was a catholic priest (Lemaitre) who demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. He also chided the Catholic Pope who made a big deal about his notion of a beginning or genesis of the universe and told him it is about science and not theology. Lemaitre was a brilliant mathematician. You seem to argue that human logic and reasoning is infallible. The same logic and reasoning capacity of man has created religions and science-go figure. Whether the universe in infinite or expanding from a beginning has nothing to do with the belief in God. Evolution has nothing to do with God either. Science cannot approach God only the belief in belief. Many psychiatry residency programs now teach religion and theology to address the problems and pluses of belief. There is evolution, gravity, a universe. There are theories as to "how" they work. "Why" they exists is another question and domain-simple.