Lousiana Science Books with both Evolution and creationism (1 Viewer)

[shader]

That being said, there is one thing about most atheists that always frustrates me. Although I find myself agreeing with you guys in a lot of areas, due to the ridiculous teachings and beliefs of most religions, there is one thing that really bothers me.

It seems like you guys feel that the "default" position should be that we don't know, and so we shouldn't believe.

I happen to disagree, as do hundreds of millions of others. Now some possibly are brain-washed, some possibly are not intelligent, and some try to intentionally distort and hide facts. But not all.

People like to think that their own beliefs are better justified than the contrary beliefs of others. It's human nature. People on both sides of the God debate do it.Many atheists convince themselves that only beliefs based on evidence are justified, and then trumpet the lack of evidence for any gods as proof that all forms of theism are unjustifiable. It can be annoying, particularly when a given atheist becomes smug about it, because plenty of perfectly good beliefs — beliefs that even atheists commonly embrace — are unsupported by evidence. (Most atheists, for example, believe that Last Thursdayism is false, even though there is no evidence of its falsity.)

But if many atheists are overly concerned with evidence, so are many theists. Theists should be quite comfortable admitting to themselves that their religious beliefs are held on faith rather than evidence; but — presumably to feel more justified in those beliefs — they often convince themselves that their religious beliefs are in fact supported by evidence. In doing so, they nearly always use double standards, special pleading, and other logical missteps.

(It is very common, by the way, for us humans to be mistaken about why we believe what we believe. Our subconscious is a master at rationalization. This is evident in numerous fascinating experiments of the sort described in this book. We fool ourselves all the time, making decisions or forming beliefs and then, only afterwards, forming rationalizations that we consciously — but falsely — believe to to have driven those decisions or beliefs.)

We've seen examples of these kinds of double standards in this thread. For example:

Some of us see unbelievable precision and are astounded. ... New scientific discoveries have only strengthened the views of many, due to the fact that the cell and DNA ALWAYS get MORE complex as our powers of observation increase. In the 1800's, it might have seem reasonable to assume that life would just pop out of nothing, as we didn't really understand the building blocks of life. ... Perhaps your worldview is that science will eventually explain how a cell could form or possibly even replicate conditions in a way that allow it to form. I don't believe that will occur or can occur naturally.

It seems you're arguing that since we can't explain exactly how life could arise from non-life without divine intervention, that's evidence for divine intervention. That's a double-standard, and here's why. We also can't explain exactly how life could have arisen from non-life with divine intervention. What's the mechanism? How does divine intervention work, exactly?If not knowing all the details involving exactly how something can occur naturally is evidence that it instead occurred supernaturally, then not knowing all the details involving exactly how something could occur supernaturally would equally be evidence that it occurred naturally. But fallacious theistic arguments embrace only the first part while disregarding the second. That's a double standard.

(We saw the same thing earlier in the thread, when rascal indicated that his problem with atheism was that it couldn't explain where all of the universe's mass and energy came from, but then expressed no problem with theism's similar inability to explain where God came from. Again, a double standard. I'm not suggesting that he must know where God came from in order to justify his theism; I'm suggesting that our ignorance of where everything came from isn't really his problem with atheism. I suspect that his real problem with atheism is simply that it goes against his faith.)

I'm not going to try to argue anybody out of believing that a loving God exists. There may be perfectly good faith-based reasons for holding that belief; and for all I know, the belief may even be true. What I would like to see, though, is greater self-awareness among theists regarding why they hold their beliefs. A belief in a transcendent God must necessarily be a matter of faith. That faith can be affirmed in appreciating the beauty and complexity of a cell; but that doesn't make the complexity of a cell evidence in support of that faith. (After all, if it turned out that cells weren't so very complicated after all, would you consider that to be evidence against God's existence? X can't be evidence for Y if not-X wouldn't be evidence for not-Y.)

Evidence-based arguments for supernatural gods are always, so far as I can tell, fallacious. That doesn't mean that no such gods exist. It certainly doesn't mean that believing in such gods is unwise or harmful. But it does suggest that the true reason that so many people believe in supernatural gods has more to do with faith than with evidence-based arguments.

I think both atheists and theists should learn to be okay with that. Atheists should stop challenging theists to support all of their religious beliefs with evidence, as if evidence is the only thing that matters; and theists should stop trying unsuccessfully to meet such an ill-proposed challenge. It's pointless.

(To be sure, I do think there are certain contexts in which it is morally irresponsible to hold beliefs unsupported by evidence; but I don't think beliefs regarding the origin or meaning of the universe fit into that category.)

Fair points all around. I would say that religious people should focus less on "proving" creation and more on their faith, if thats important to them. My whole entrance in this thread was done to bring some sort of rational side of the belief in God to the table. The YEC's distort things so much, that it makes all christians look bad. I totally agree that I can't PROVE creation to you in a scientific way. That doesn't mean I can't PROVE it to myself. Where I think the conversation went off the rails is when I used the word evidence. But all evidence isn't the same. Perhaps the evidence that I see doesn't ring true for you. Perhaps what I consider strong evidence, you see as weak evidence. This happens all the time in life.

I didn't expect such a harsh reaction, because I never denigrated the other side. I never said my evidence was scientific evidence back by trial and error and experimentation.

It's just....evidence. "We hold these truths as self-evident, that all men are created equal". For many of us, creation is simply evident all around us. The "evidence" is simply everywhere. Obviously the evidence isn't perceived the same way by Maurile Tremblay as it is perceived by myself, but that doesn't make it any less real for me. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's just....evidence. "We hold these truths as self-evident, that all men are created equal".

My link.

 

[shader]

On my phone so hard to quote what I need, but I wanted to touch on something I think Maurile referenced above, and it's why I think it's important to recognize the two separate parts of the discussion, namely: was there a creator, and if so, who was the creator?The former is a fascinating philosophical question. It's fun to debate, but ultimately I don't really care if you think DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. None of us knows and almost certainly never will, so it's fun to talk about but ultimately not very important. The latter, though, has real implications. Once you make the leap from "I believe the universe must have had a creator" to "I believe the god of the bible created the universe" now you're taking a much stronger stance, and that's when we start getting into the problems atheists legitimately have with religion, e.g. gay marriage rights, stem cell research funding, science education in public schools, etc. So I know you don't have any evidence that the universe had a creator. I don't have any evidence that it didn't. That's fine. But once you put a name to it, and it comes with a book full of rules you believe we should follow, that's when I have to start demanding evidence. It's why I made that distinction earlier and have since tried to steer the discussion in that direction. I don't especially care why you believe in a creator. I do care why you believe in the Bible.

Fair. I would say though, that I don't agree with the christian right. The groups that are out there trying to oppose gay marriage, abortion, stem cell, science, etc. Pushing beliefs on others isn't necessary. Now that does mean sharing beliefs with others is wrong, as I think it's a fundamental part of being a christian. But trying to push a certain agenda on society as a whole isn't something I have any part in.As to why I believe in the bible, that's fine. I'll go down that road. I've been on this board a long time, so you know I'll be back. I'm just wrapping up a few posts in this thread, then I'm probably going to be MIA for the next couple days aside from occasional iphone usage. But I'd certainly entertain that idea. I'll be sure to bump this thread.

 

[shader]

It's just....evidence. "We hold these truths as self-evident, that all men are created equal".

My link.

That's fair. Again, perhaps my wording is just wrong. I'm no debate master, that's quite obvious. In fact, Maurile's point in his post about how many of us are mistaken about why we believe what we believe is a good one. Perhaps using the 1+1=2 analogy was wrong. But it's still undeniable, indisputable, "self-evident". That's kind of how it is. I don't know if it can be explained in a way that satisfies what some are looking for.

 

[shader]

It hardly seems to matter whether smart people or dumb people or religious people or secular people believe the watchmaker argument. The argument must stand or fall on its own.So let's look at the argument as a logical proof (and please correct me if I'm getting it wrong).Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by creators.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Conclusion: DNA is made by an intelligent creator.Now here's another logical proof.Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by humans.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Concusion: DNA is designed by humans.In each case, I'd assume everyone on this board agrees with the three premises. But as the second proof illustrates, the premises don't lead to the conclusions.

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

 

[urbanhack]

So I know you don't have any evidence that the universe had a creator. I don't have any evidence that it didn't. That's fine. But once you put a name to it, and it comes with a book full of rules you believe we should follow, that's when I have to start demanding evidence. It's why I made that distinction earlier and have since tried to steer the discussion in that direction. I don't especially care why you believe in a creator. I do care why you believe in the Bible.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

It hardly seems to matter whether smart people or dumb people or religious people or secular people believe the watchmaker argument. The argument must stand or fall on its own.So let's look at the argument as a logical proof (and please correct me if I'm getting it wrong).Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by creators.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Conclusion: DNA is made by an intelligent creator.Now here's another logical proof.Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by humans.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Concusion: DNA is designed by humans.In each case, I'd assume everyone on this board agrees with the three premises. But as the second proof illustrates, the premises don't lead to the conclusions.

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

Don't forget the banana.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The former is a fascinating philosophical question. It's fun to debate, but ultimately I don't really care if you think DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. None of us knows and almost certainly never will, so it's fun to talk about but ultimately not very important.

See, I'm almost exactly the opposite. Whether DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer is a subject that might come up in science class, or in any class that is designed to test critical thinking or analytical reasoning. I'm much more concerned about the argument than I am about the conclusion. I agree that "Is there a God?" or "Is there a creator" is perhaps the least interesting atheist/theist debate. You could present conclusive proof tomorrow that the universe was created by a supernatural entity named Larry. Maybe we have a subatomic microscope that shows that every subatomic particle has a label that says "Made by Larry." That would be simultaneously the most heralded yet least significant scientific discovery of all time. Because all you'd have to do to update every science textbook in existence would be to add a sentence that says, "The universe was created by Larry."For the same reason, I'm not sure the question of whehter the world was created by Larry or Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti monster is all that interesting either. The interesting question is whether we should make moral decisions based upon what we perceive a creator to want us to do. And that's a subject where I do believe that schools should "teach the controversy."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It hardly seems to matter whether smart people or dumb people or religious people or secular people believe the watchmaker argument. The argument must stand or fall on its own.So let's look at the argument as a logical proof (and please correct me if I'm getting it wrong).Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by creators.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Conclusion: DNA is made by an intelligent creator.Now here's another logical proof.Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by humans.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Concusion: DNA is designed by humans.In each case, I'd assume everyone on this board agrees with the three premises. But as the second proof illustrates, the premises don't lead to the conclusions.

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

Was listing four premises (instead of three premises and a conclusion) on purpose? If so, nice job.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It hardly seems to matter whether smart people or dumb people or religious people or secular people believe the watchmaker argument. The argument must stand or fall on its own.So let's look at the argument as a logical proof (and please correct me if I'm getting it wrong).Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by creators.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Conclusion: DNA is made by an intelligent creator.Now here's another logical proof.Premise: Watches are complex.Premise: Watches are designed by humans.Premise: DNA is at least as complex as a watch.Concusion: DNA is designed by humans.In each case, I'd assume everyone on this board agrees with the three premises. But as the second proof illustrates, the premises don't lead to the conclusions.

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

But the conclusion "DNA is designed" isn't compelled by any of the premises. We all agree that watches are designed. But just because some complex things are designed doesn't mean that all complex things are designed.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

Yeah, that's still not a logical proof.Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are jewelryPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchConclusion: DNA is jewelryYou would say that I must accept the premise that all complex things must have a designer. But that's just question begging. Lots of things are complex. Watches, computer operating systems, DNA molecules, quantum physics. Some of those things are man made and some of them are natural. Just because complex man-made things are designed, that doesn't mean that complex natural things need to be designed. In fact, the inference is probably stronger in the other direction. Most designed things have an identifiable designer. Not all, we have paintings and sculptures with anonymous creators, but most. I don't know a watch was created because it's complex. I know it's created because the owner of the watch will bore me for 2 hours telling me in painstaking detail how Rolex created it. And if I wanted to, I could talk to the guy at Rolex who created it.I can't do that with a hurricane or a DNA molecule.

 

[Godsbrother]

Just checking to see if any atheists were converted or if any Christians have lost their faith...

 

[zDragon]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

One side is atheism and one side is religion. Get it straight.

Atheism isn't a "side". Religion is a "side" and atheism is just not taking that "side".If I tell you that a tennis ball is an omnipotent god and you don't think that makes sense, can I say you are on the side fervently against the magical power of tennis balls? No. You just don't accept it or care.

Atheism is a side. You might think so but it is. In your tennis ball example you are in disagreement with the balls having magical powers. Atheist are in disagreement. Therefore you have chosen a side. You have also chosen to post and express your disbelief in public forums showing your support for the non-magical side.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

FWIW, despite my presence in the thread, I guess I'm on the side of not caring too much about the text book so long as it's a private school textbook. I don't think the voucher argument changes much. I'm not going to make it illegal to home school your kids and teach them creationism, so I'm not particularly interested in making it illegal for a private school to teach kids creationism. If some couple wants to make it more likely that their kid will fail biology at LSU, that's their business.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Personally, I'd leave the "humans" out of it. Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

Yeah, that's still not a logical proof.Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are jewelryPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchConclusion: DNA is jewelryYou would say that I must accept the premise that all complex things must have a designer. But that's just question begging. Lots of things are complex. Watches, computer operating systems, DNA molecules, quantum physics. Some of those things are man made and some of them are natural. Just because complex man-made things are designed, that doesn't mean that complex natural things need to be designed. In fact, the inference is probably stronger in the other direction. Most designed things have an identifiable designer. Not all, we have paintings and sculptures with anonymous creators, but most. I don't know a watch was created because it's complex. I know it's created because the owner of the watch will bore me for 2 hours telling me in painstaking detail how Rolex created it. And if I wanted to, I could talk to the guy at Rolex who created it.I can't do that with a hurricane or a DNA molecule.

Well done sir. You will never last in here talking this way. Complexity suggests there is an natural order to the universe rather than the machinations of a designer.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Just checking to see if any atheists were converted or if any Christians have lost their faith...

If that happened, what would we talk about next week?

 

[cstu]

Shader, I'm going to guess that there's not too many people who are neutral on the issue of whether there's a God, then look at DNA and decide, "Well, obviously it's designed, therefore God must exist." I submit that nearly 100% of people who reach this conclusion (such as yourself) already believe in God, usually are quite religious, and use this and other arguments to justify a faith which is already deeply held. And what's so ironic about this is that faith, by definition, needs no justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Francis_Collins

Francis Collins became a Christian due to reasons that had nothing to do with scientific discovery. Per what you linked:Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40]as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".[22]

So basically the plot of "The Invention of Lying".

 

[BigSteelThrill]

None of us knows and almost certainly never will,

Not if God decides to actually appear and let himself be known. He can at anytime. He would also gain what He wants.

 

[17seconds]

I never equated religious beliefs to science. The scientific theory of the big bang is fine.

I must have missed the hard evidence proving how and why the big bang happened though. Please explain.

you did equate them with your statement of 'neither side has a lot of hard evidence'. one side is science, the other side is religion. saying things like this belittles science and puts religion on par with it. how's this for an explanation as to how or why?: We don't know.

you are the one that thinks he knows how it happened (God did it!!). is it that hard to say you don't know? try it. whats the point in making up grandiose explanations with absolutely no evidence to support them? and the irony that you're insulted by the FSM is ridiculous. there IS just as much evidence for him as any other explanation as to why and how the Big Bang happened.

One side is atheism and one side is religion. Get it straight.

Atheism isn't a "side". Religion is a "side" and atheism is just not taking that "side".If I tell you that a tennis ball is an omnipotent god and you don't think that makes sense, can I say you are on the side fervently against the magical power of tennis balls? No. You just don't accept it or care.

Atheism is a side. You might think so but it is. In your tennis ball example you are in disagreement with the balls having magical powers. Atheist are in disagreement. Therefore you have chosen a side. You have also chosen to post and express your disbelief in public forums showing your support for the non-magical side.

That doesn't make it a side. I don't believe in the religious arguments for the existence of god, but I'm not arguing against the existence of god. It's false to put atheism on the same footing with religion by saying it's just another side in the argument.I'm trying to think of other examples to illustrate what I mean... My wife doesn't believe baseball is entertaining, so it is not part of her life. It doesn't exist to her. If MLB stopped tomorrow she wouldn't care. That doesn't mean she's taken a side against how Joe Girardi manages the Yankees.

I do take a side against religion, which is the reason why I get involved in these discussions. I am against violations of the separation of church and state.

 

[rascal]

Nobody has yet to answer my questions from earlier. I'm still waiting for a response.

post 117 and 34

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Nobody has yet to answer my questions from earlier. I'm still waiting for a response.

Bump the post.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

MT.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A question for you. There are obviously unknown answers and undoubtedly even unknown questions. Why couldn't the answer be God or Mbombo? And how can you justify altruism, Moral Law, and mans universal search for "God"?

The answer to some questions is undoubtedly Mbombo.Altruism and morality are broadly explainable in terms of evolutionary biology. Here's an overview. If you're interested in the subject, I recommend Robert Wright's The Moral Animal. It's well written and quite engaging.

There may be similar explanations for man's innate affinity for religious thought, but I'm less familiar with that branch of study, and it seems inherently more complicated. I suspect there are a number of different factors involved — our tendency to anthropomorphize our environment, our tendency to perceive patterns in random phenomena, our natural submissiveness to alpha males . . . just those three things would go a long way toward explaining our willingness to make sacrifices to the rain god in order to end the drought, for example.

And there is very likely a positive-feedback mechanism at work, as well. Once religious thinking starts to catch on, it has some potentially powerful self-reinforcing mechanisms in place. In the history of humanity, how many people have been killed for refusing to worship their neighbors' god?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You also said that believing in God is even more incredible (i.e. impossible) than believing in the universe. I fail to understand that statement.

I don't think there's any doubt that the universe exists. The existence of God, surely you'll agree, is at least slightly less certain?

 

[joffer]

kudos to shader for hanging in

I obviously don't agree with you, and youre outnumbered, but you're a good sport

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Nobody has yet to answer my questions from earlier. I'm still waiting for a response.

Says the guy who claimed he didn't have "the time or mental energy" to answer the questions posed to him. Perhaps you reap what you sow.

 

[Sea Duck]

Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: DNA is more complex than a watchPremise: DNA is designedSeems pretty straight-forward to me.

Premise: Watches are complexPremise: Watches are designedPremise: The safety pin is less complex than a watchConclusion: The safety pin was not designed

 

[fatness]

Just checking to see if any atheists were converted or if any Christians have lost their faith...

To cover all my bases I just prayed to a dinosaur.

 

[Mister CIA]

the creator of the FSM origin story did so not to explain the origin of the universe, but to prevent intelligent design from being taught in science classes. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Huh, and all this time I thought the FSM was just invented to make fun of Christians. Now I feel like a really stupid ####### for thinking that. Thanks!

It could be argued that mock and ridicule were also goals. It's possible for literature to have more than one objective.The last time I suggested FSM mocked people who appealed to unfalsifiable claims about God's existence, one of the atheists in the discussion got worked into such a tizzy, he couldn't even form sentences. So I've learned to de-emphasize that aspect of FSM when it comes up around atheists. Turns them into hypocrites.

Including FSM in a list of gods people worship or once worshiped demonstrates the same understanding of religion/theology that someone who asks what's the big deal about evolution since it's "just a theory" has of science. It's an indicator you don't want a serious discussion and don't deserve to be taken seriously as long as you hang on to it.

Your God is much more complex than FSM, yes?

 

[Mister CIA]

Your God is much more complex than FSM, yes?

Most Nickelback songs are much more complex than FSM. What's the point of the question?

God is a result of design.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So I think it's best to move past the question and fast-forward to the purpose of asking it.

Yes, so whenever you (and shader, and rascal...) are ready to do this, please do. We've been waiting.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I guess I don't see what's so nation destroyingly bad. The book clearly outlines both sides of the arguement and lets the kids decide which they want to believe. At least it's balanced.

*sigh*

Agreed, now if only we can get so e balanced textbooks in re: the flat earth society and the moon landing, and our lizard overlords.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Your God is much more complex than FSM, yes?

Most Nickelback songs are much more complex than FSM. What's the point of the question?

God is a result of design.

Eyeballs

 

[NCCommish]

God is a result of design.

Interesting. Are speaking of God as the God described in the Bible, or does this apply to all other religions as well?How did you arrive at that conclusion that God is a result of design?

Obviously any omnipotent being would be too complex to arise without one.

 

[NCCommish]

God is a result of design.

Interesting. Are speaking of God as the God described in the Bible, or does this apply to all other religions as well?How did you arrive at that conclusion that God is a result of design?

Obviously any omnipotent being would be too complex to arise without one.

Other than the part where it's not obvious. And the assumption of omnipotence. And that assumed omnipotence implies complexity. And that a supernatural being unbound by the laws and dimensions of the universe we occupy has to operate by the rules we can observe. Other than that, .

If the Christian God isn't omnipotent then the Bible is all a lie. And if it's obvious DNA is too complex to arise from anything but a designer than how can an omnipotent supernatural being not be too complicated to arise naturally?

 

[shader]

God is a result of design.

Interesting. Are speaking of God as the God described in the Bible, or does this apply to all other religions as well?How did you arrive at that conclusion that God is a result of design?

Obviously any omnipotent being would be too complex to arise without one.

Other than the part where it's not obvious. And the assumption of omnipotence. And that assumed omnipotence implies complexity. And that a supernatural being unbound by the laws and dimensions of the universe we occupy has to operate by the rules we can observe. Other than that, .

If the Christian God isn't omnipotent then the Bible is all a lie. And if it's obvious DNA is too complex to arise from anything but a designer than how can an omnipotent supernatural being not be too complicated to arise naturally?

No one knows the answer to any if this in an exact way. But if God creates the universe and the laws that guide the universe, than the laws don't apply to him as he exists outside the universe. (Ironically, YEC's use this logic but ten go against it when they insist that God used 24 hour human days to create the universe. What's funnier is that they think these periods started before the sun was actually created.) In the physical universe that we live in, we can only analyze the physical things we can see. Many of us think that certain aspects of the world are far too complex to have arisen without some sort of intelligence behind it.Also as Ivan has said at least twice in this thread, Christians don't believe God "arose naturally" or was created at all. Bottom line is that there is nothing unscientific about looking at something, be it a protein, DNA, or the universe, and saying "it appears to have been constructed, designed, or manufactured in some way." Not knowing who constructed or designed it is not relevant.That's not to say that we should stop studying or researching. Just that as if now it looks to have been designed. Even Many scientists that are atheists talk about the "appearance" of design. So what's wrong with saying, "for now much of what we see is so complex that it appears to be designed, but there is no way to know for sure. Perhaps further testing will bring to light how these things could have arisen naturally"?I'm totally fine with that. But most scientists insist that it did arise naturally, without proof, and scoff at any who think there was design of any kind. Proof that they are a little bit biased. You can deny the animosity that exists towards people who believe in design. Heck maybe we are all wrong, and there exists some other types of life that exists in some other dimension outside our universe, and maybe these "aliens" manufactured this universe somehow and perhaps we find existence of them in some unknown way.I just don't get the animosity. I think much comes from the YEC crowd insisting that the universe is 6k years old. That probably agitates the atheists terribly.For now I'd like to see scientists say "due to the complexity of the universe, we can see why so many believe in a designer." Would that kind of concession not engender more support in science?

 

[shader]

On my phone so hard to quote what I need, but I wanted to touch on something I think Maurile referenced above, and it's why I think it's important to recognize the two separate parts of the discussion, namely: was there a creator, and if so, who was the creator?The former is a fascinating philosophical question. It's fun to debate, but ultimately I don't really care if you think DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. None of us knows and almost certainly never will, so it's fun to talk about but ultimately not very important. The latter, though, has real implications. Once you make the leap from "I believe the universe must have had a creator" to "I believe the god of the bible created the universe" now you're taking a much stronger stance, and that's when we start getting into the problems atheists legitimately have with religion, e.g. gay marriage rights, stem cell research funding, science education in public schools, etc. So I know you don't have any evidence that the universe had a creator. I don't have any evidence that it didn't. That's fine. But once you put a name to it, and it comes with a book full of rules you believe we should follow, that's when I have to start demanding evidence. It's why I made that distinction earlier and have since tried to steer the discussion in that direction. I don't especially care why you believe in a creator. I do care why you believe in the Bible.

IE,Ok I want to agree with you on a couple things. First, if anyone is DEMANDING that you do certain things, I think it's perfectly reasonable to come back and question exactly why they are demanding those things. For me, I don't lump myself in with the vast majority of "christians" in this country. I don't agree with the majority of the beliefs, and I especially don't like the over-involvement in politics that most engage in.So if you are asking me why I believe in the God of the bible, I'm fine with answering, but I want to know what the structure and the point of the conversation is going to be? For instance, if I start by giving you a list of some of the things I find amazing about the bible itself, such as the fact that by a wide margin it's the most widely distributed book of all-time, is in practically every language there is, has survived unbelievable attacks on it, much coming from the church itself in the middle ages, etc....Would you accept some of these things or are you then going to try and attack each point. I guess my question is are you looking to just understand why I believe in God?And as far as the specifics of the bible, I've studied it for a long time. How deep do you want to go? I mean, a basic outline? Or are you more interested in using a "101 proofs that the bible contradicts itself" web document and attempt to trash the bible and try and show how anyone who believes in the bible is a fool?Perhaps you are just curious, and if so, I'm fine with that. I just know what normally happens in these types of threads, so excuse my skepticism.

 

[fatness]

World History and Cultures In Christian Perspective

Most chapters and sections have the bland, utilitarian headings of any high school text — but then there are the subtle reminders that this is a fundamentalist Christian textbook:

* Rome: Preparation of the World for Christ

* Unbelief and Revolution in 19th-Century Europe

* Concepts in History: Why Communism Kills

* Twentieth-Century Liberalism; Retreat from Authority and Responsibility

* Concepts in History: Environmental Extremism

Adam and Eve…contained within their genes the genetic potential for the subsequent development of the different races. Nearly the same must have been true about Noah and his three sons and their wives, since they repopulated the postdiluvian earth… [As post-Babel humanity spread across the globe], each clan was developing distinct physical characteristics to accompany its own language or dialect… Extensive intermarriage within an initially small and isolated population resulted in the appearance of a great many recessive traits which were hidden in the gene pool of Noah and his family. Thus, the races of man came into existence over only a few hundred years (p. 6).

The Greeks’ humanistic philosophy tended to influence their sciences and arts; in fact, much of the modern theory of evolution and many ideas of modern psychology were based on the Greeks’ false, man-centered philosophies (p. 112).

Unfortunately, in their attempt to find philosophical absolutes, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle…failed to recognize man’s responsibility to a Creator God. As a result, many of the Greek philosphers and their followers fell into gross immorality (p. 115).

On the Worst Thing About The Slave Trade: the Portuguese brought the slave trade to Europe and the New World, giving the trade a much larger market. The Africans themselves bought and sold each other with shocking readiness… The traffic in human bodies and souls was a cruel, despicable occupation, and Africans suspected any white men, including European explorers and missionaries, of being potential slave traders. This made the task of African exploration and evangelization even more difficult and challenging (p. 87).

link

 

[matuski]

I'm simply defending the rational belief in a creator of the universe. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe the universe was created by something.

These are two different statements. The second is undoubtedly correct. That doesn't make the first correct. Humans aren't robots and they aren't Vulcans. Rational, smart, intelligent people believe irrational things all the time. "DNA is evidence of a creator" is an assertion. In order to prove it's a rational argument, and not just a premise that you expect others to accept a fiori you have to explain the basis for the conclusion.

Rational, smart, intelligent people have believed in all religious creation myths that exist or have existed. It doesn't doesn't make any of them less of a myth.

 

[matuski]

But just because some complex things are designed doesn't mean that all complex things are designed.

For me it isn't an argument about who designed the designer, it is more about adding a variable to the equation.Arguing against what you perceive as impossible by arguing for the impossible PLUS an invisible magical god.

 

[matuski]

So I know you don't have any evidence that the universe had a creator. I don't have any evidence that it didn't. That's fine. But once you put a name to it, and it comes with a book full of rules you believe we should follow, that's when I have to start demanding evidence. It's why I made that distinction earlier and have since tried to steer the discussion in that direction. I don't especially care why you believe in a creator. I do care why you believe in the Bible.

Well put.

 

[NCCommish]

Louisiana's school voucher program ruled unconstitutional

BATON ROUGE -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's voucher program that uses tax dollars to send students to private schools was ruled unconstitutional Friday by a state judge who said it's improperly funded through the public school financing formula.

Judge Tim Kelley sided with arguments presented by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

Pineville attorney Jimmy Faircloth represented the state in the three-day trial.

The governor said the state will appeal the decision.

Kelley said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.

"The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers," Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.

Kelley, a Republican, didn't rule on whether it's appropriate to spend state tax dollars on private school tuition. His decision was narrowly focused on the financing mechanism chosen by the GOP governor and approved by the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and lawmakers.

Rapides Parish School Board member Janet Dixon applauded the judge's decision.

"I'm excited and elated that ruling was made because this act of creating vouchers in Louisiana was a decision that was hastily made without all the specifics and all the questions answered," Dixon said. "I'm not surprised that a judge found it unconstitutional. ... With anything as important as educating our children, these decisions should never be hastily made."

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

"On behalf of the citizens that cast their votes for reform, the parents who want more choices, and the kids who deserve a chance, we will appeal today's decision, and I'm confident we will prevail," the governor said in a statement.

Bill Maurer, a lawyer representing two parents with children in the voucher program and two pro-voucher groups, said he didn't expect Kelley's ruling to immediately force voucher students from their private schools, because Kelley didn't issue an injunction against the program.

"We strongly disagree with the ruling," state Superintendent John White said in a statement. "We are optimistic this decision will be reversed on appeal."

More than 4,900 students are enrolled in 117 private schools with taxpayer dollars, in one of the largest voucher programs in the nation.

There are 87 students attending private schools on vouchers in Rapides Parish.

"I am a product of public education. I am a supporter of public education," Dixon said. "I believe in public education. I take issue with any action that drains funding from public education, which we use to further public education."

Friday's ruling was the second legal setback this week for the voucher program that Jindal pushed through the Legislature this year as part of a sweeping education system overhaul. On Monday, a federal judge halted the voucher program in one Louisiana parish, saying it conflicts with a decades-old desegregation case.

U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle's ruling affected only Tangipahoa Parish. However, it could have implications in other Louisiana public school districts that are under federal desegregation orders.

Jindal, a Republican who was easily re-elected last year, made the voucher program, a tougher teacher tenure policy and other education measures the signature legislation of his young second term.

He pushed them through in the early weeks of the spring legislative session during marathon committee meetings and floor debates that drew vehement protests from teacher unions and others in the state's education establishment.

"The political rhetoric of 'pro-reform' vs. 'anti-reform' hopefully is over," said Scott Richard, head of the Louisiana School Boards Association. "We're not anti-reform. We just want the political shell game to stop with public funding for public education."

The judge's ruling clearly will not end the debate over Jindal's program. The case eventually is expected to be decided by the state Supreme Court.

"Although the court has ruled, I suspect this is not the end of it." said Steve Berry, a member of the Rapides Parish School Board. "Generally speaking, I am for the idea of vouchers if done the right way. We'll have to wait and see how the courts and the Legislature react to all this."

Melinda Deslatte of The Associated Press and Leigh Gentry of The Town Talk contributed to this report.

The Town Talk

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

 

[Soonerman]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

Uh, because there are powerful political forces (the teachers unions) that will prevent any reforms? And meanwhile, those same forces will do everything they can to keep kids locked into hellhole schools.

 

[Glass Joe]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

Uh, because there are powerful political forces (the teachers unions) that will prevent any reforms? And meanwhile, those same forces will do everything they can to keep kids locked into hellhole schools.

Yeah those evil unions are to blame for our bad schools!!!Weird worldview you've got there.

 

[GoFishTN]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

Uh, because there are powerful political forces (the teachers unions) that will prevent any reforms? And meanwhile, those same forces will do everything they can to keep kids locked into hellhole schools.

Yeah those evil unions are to blame for our bad schools!!!Weird worldview you've got there.

It's obviously the kids fault they have such crappy schools.

 

[Soonerman]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

Uh, because there are powerful political forces (the teachers unions) that will prevent any reforms? And meanwhile, those same forces will do everything they can to keep kids locked into hellhole schools.

Yeah those evil unions are to blame for our bad schools!!!Weird worldview you've got there.

They're not totally to blame, but they certainly bear a decent amount of the blame.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Pretty remarkable Republican textbook for kids.

 

[matuski]

Pretty remarkable Republican textbook for kids.

After Becky agrees to be her dad's wife, they have more children together so that Adam can make babies with his grandchildren instead of his daughters, and so on. Young readers will want to use a brown pen to color the face of Ham who appears right near the end of the book after God turns him into the first Negro for staring at his dad's (Noah's) hootchie.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Jindal called the judge's ruling "a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education."

Unreal. How about you fix your state's public schools, jackass.

Uh, because there are powerful political forces (the teachers unions) that will prevent any reforms? And meanwhile, those same forces will do everything they can to keep kids locked into hellhole schools.

All the teachers I know (including my wife and pretty much all of my friends) want nothing more than to work in, and lock kids into, hellhole schools.