(I won't try to mince words here. I was born and raised Christian; I led an uneventful and spiritual life until I found Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I was only after reading the best of what both had to offer that I decided I had to be willing to question my upbringing. My family accepted me, but I lost Christian friends, and extended relatives. I paid a lot, but I stand firm in my choice. My current position of atheism has lead to a more intellectually rigorous lifestyle, greater fulfillment in daily life, and has generally improved my life. now you know me.)
Does anyone else recognize this movie as a severely underhanded attack on Darwinism (not a defense of Creationism or I.D.)? Proponents of I.D. will tell you that it is not a religious suggestion, yet you will not find atheists behind the I.D. push. Why is there still a desire to have I.D. in classrooms? Isn't this a step in the wrong direction?
If we allow the supernatural into the biology classroom, aren't we inviting the supernatural into other classrooms? Isn't it easier for the physicist to simply say: "I don't know why these quarks cannot bond, it must be the will of God. Let us end our research," than to further explore.
What happened? Even in my Christian days I would not have called to a teach to explain Noah's Ark, or to explain the Flood, or anything of the sort.
If it wasn't enough, we have Ben Stein, a clearly intelligent man, backing this movement. I welcome criticism (I'm sure I'll get it), but I really don't see how creationism in the classroom can lead to a benefit. If nothing else, if creationism is correct, then Darwinism will lead us to it. Science doesn't ask for faith, only a set of eyes to look at the evidence. Papers on creationism are peer-reviewed and peer-rejected because they don't withstand a rigorous investigation. Where did we lose our way?
Expelled: Intelligence or Whatever
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Expelled: Intelligence or Whatever
Post #31I too have read Francis Collins, who btw is a devout Christian. Because of his arguments I rejected ID for the reason that it substitutes the miraculous for things that can be explained naturally.XaWN wrote:(I won't try to mince words here. I was born and raised Christian; I led an uneventful and spiritual life until I found Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I was only after reading the best of what both had to offer that I decided I had to be willing to question my upbringing. My family accepted me, but I lost Christian friends, and extended relatives. I paid a lot, but I stand firm in my choice. My current position of atheism has lead to a more intellectually rigorous lifestyle, greater fulfillment in daily life, and has generally improved my life. now you know me.)
Does anyone else recognize this movie as a severely underhanded attack on Darwinism (not a defense of Creationism or I.D.)? Proponents of I.D. will tell you that it is not a religious suggestion, yet you will not find atheists behind the I.D. push. Why is there still a desire to have I.D. in classrooms? Isn't this a step in the wrong direction?
If we allow the supernatural into the biology classroom, aren't we inviting the supernatural into other classrooms? Isn't it easier for the physicist to simply say: "I don't know why these quarks cannot bond, it must be the will of God. Let us end our research," than to further explore.
What happened? Even in my Christian days I would not have called to a teach to explain Noah's Ark, or to explain the Flood, or anything of the sort.
If it wasn't enough, we have Ben Stein, a clearly intelligent man, backing this movement. I welcome criticism (I'm sure I'll get it), but I really don't see how creationism in the classroom can lead to a benefit. If nothing else, if creationism is correct, then Darwinism will lead us to it. Science doesn't ask for faith, only a set of eyes to look at the evidence. Papers on creationism are peer-reviewed and peer-rejected because they don't withstand a rigorous investigation. Where did we lose our way?
Richard Dawkins is too anti-theist for my tastes.
My point is --- you don't have to be an Atheist to accept science(as is). Collins is a perfect example of this.
What I don't understand is why some non-theists like to claim that their position is scientific -- which suggests that anyone who believes in God cannot accept scientific fact.
Science deals with human observation of the material universe -- it has nothing to do with philosophical positions (There is a God) :: (There is no god).
While a number of believers like to say the universe was designed with a purpose -- Richard Dawkins did admit that:
We all know that the universe is the way it is because of the natural laws that govern it. We know that life exists the way it does because of natural selection which ultimately improves the survivability of life over time -- thus giving rise to some appearance of design.Richard Dawkins wrote:Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
_____
SOURCE
The laws of our universe exist in such a way that life is possible elsewhere in our universe.
This of course is the Anthropic principle.
The idea that our universe (and perhaps other universe that came before it - see M Theory) exists the way it does only because of the laws that gave rise to it are the way that they are -- AND the idea that our multiverse(if it exists) is an inevitable consequence of the laws that at one point created it(assuming it had a beginning - which is still debated to this day) --
How is this not compatible with the idea that we exist in our universe - it exists because of the laws that created it/ multiverse? - the multiverse exists because at some point in the distant past laws gave rise to it
And because God, assuming He exists and is omniscient -- knew that natural laws would give rise to everything
Wouldn't it be logical for a Theist to then postulate that God is the ultimate source of everything because he knew what would happen - whether he actually started anything or not ...
Therefore, We and Our universe exist because God knew that this was the only possible way that we could exist.
That while there may be parallel universe out there -- there is no perfect universe.
The potential for evil, among sentient beings always exists due to the way they evolved - (only in universes where the laws that created them allow for the emergence of life).
Therefore to claim that there is no loving God that exists, on the assumption that He would have created a perfect universe and perfect beings - based on the assumption that He knew another way to create our universe that would have been better for all us sentient mortals -- is illogical in and of itself.
Evil exists in the world
If God is Love, why is it so prevalent?
If God knows all things and is all powerful, why didn't He create things differently as to make it less prevalent or non-existent?
_____
ERGO: God doesn't exist
The above rests on the premise that Because God is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent, our world would have no evil, and our universe would be perfect-- which rests on the assumption that there would have been a better way to create the universe -- which ultimately ignores the Anthropic principle altogether -- and also ignores the possibility that evil is the ultimate side effect of sentience vs baser instincts.
It's kind of like a tea cup complaining that if its maker really existed, it would have been indestructible -- when the only materials for its being was clay and a furnace.
(EDIT: This draft has been sitting in my drafts and posts for a while now. It's not perfect -- there may be some errors in logic or wordiness in there, but I'm kind of sleepy so I might have missed a bit of it.)
My Favorite Song Ever.
Post #32My favorite song is criminal by Britney Spare nowadays. she is one of the famous vocalist and has an attractive voice, which perfectly suits with the music and lyrics......the theme of the song is also good this song is described a beautiful feeling of love.
