Wow, the Discovery Institute snagged another college professor. (He admits that he came out of the closet only after he got tenure!)

The DI's list of "700 scientists who have doubts about Darwinism" is heavy with computer-science people such as Marks. These people are designers themselves, and tend to see designs everywhere. Good for them---it makes thewm good programmers. But maybe not good biologists.

Actually, Darwinian natural selection is a form of design. Random mutations are culled to produce organisms that are thereby 'designed' to fit their environment. The difference is that Darwinian designs needs no outside supernatural designer. In the same way, we consider snowflakes to have designs, but do not inquire as to their designer.

In the DI 700 list, note that almost none of the scientists have any knowlwdge of biology. Most are computer science, civil engineers, mathematicians, and others who have little background in any relevant subject matter. For a laugh, read the NCSE's "Project Steve," a list of 700 biology rersearchers named Steve (or Stepanie) who have no doubts that Darwinism is adequate to explain life.

The DI's 700 list seems to have neen a recruiting tool. I don't know whether Marks is on it, but neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor, the DI's new walking talking logic fallacy, was.

Actually Pau Banana has got it all wrong, Biologist know nothing about design and Biology has nothing to do with evolution, and therefore anything to do with design has nothing to do with biologists, since evolution has nothing to do with anything, we are left with Darwinian magic sorcery, witches, gobblins and harry potter witchcraft.

Therefore the only response about design should be left to those who know something about design and how complex systems operate including the origin of that design. Darwinian sorcery is left with no adequate explanation, merely incompetent dribble.

Everyone has every right to state they're idea and opinion in this, Pau Hana would like only if Pau Hana and his fairies were to waive they're magic wand and command silence. Unfortunately for Pau Banana, science only progresses through non-silence.

I'm a little intrigued by the remark that biology has nothing to do with evolution, considering Dobzhansky's remark that "Nothing in biology makes sense" without evolution. But when you think about it...one can completely reject evolution and still study biology, thus the two are independent of each other.
Apparently Pau Hana can't get his facts straight. A quick PDF search of just the phrase 'bio' in the list of 700 yields 176 matches. Keep in mind that this count ignores all the geneticists, embryologists, bacteriologists, doctors in medicine, etc. etc. Also there is no rule that one must have a degree in the subject to have some grasp of it. I happen to have a degree in Computer Science, but I've been following the lack of fossil evidence for evolution, the limits of microevolution for quite some time.
To answer a couple of the other points
1)Natural selection does not produce anything. I don't know why people struggle with this point. Natural selection simply keeps what's already there. How is "survival of the fittest" creatures that already exist a "form of design"? The real evolutionary explanation is random mutations, and natural selection is just fluff that's added on.
2)Snowflakes--this argument has been used so often, you'd think people would have realized the basic difference between living organisms and snowflakes--functionality!! The arrangement in a snowflake does not have any function at all. There is no interdependence of parts that requires them all being in place. It's interesting to note that *ANY* system that we encounter (with the exception of biological organsisms whose design is disputed) that consists of a set of functional parts is immediately assumed to be designed. Why make an exception for living organisms.
A better analogy would be the watch analogy. If we come across a watch in the forest, we don't think that the same natural processes that produced everything around it produced the watch. We identify the watch as having been designed BECAUSE of its complexity and functionality. This criteria of identifying design is also present in living organsims, so why not go with the obvious inference to design?
But we are told by the proponents of evolution that "Watches don't reproduce, so the analogy doesn't hold". No problem here, we simply extend the analogy. Hypothetically speaking, if we come across a watch that is capable of picking up loose springs, gears, etc. and actually making a replica of itself (also a combo watch-watch factory), we would definitely not come to the conclusion "Well...gee...I thought it was designed, but it's capable of cloning itself. Looks like no one designed it". Quite the contrary, because of its sophsitication (complexity & functionality) we would CERTAINLY infer that it had a designer. We're a long way from designing watches like this, but when you see a living organism with its extraordinary capabilities, including the ability to clone itself, isn't a designer obvious? Considering the sexual reproduction in living organisms, doesn't it take someone with foresight to realize "There has to be a mechanism for each parent to pass on half its chromosomes(meiosis) so the child ends up with a complete set". How can unintelligent processes come up with that?
Watchmaker analogy enhanced, critique of intelligent design refuted.

Darwinian Fairies only added the non-random components after realizing the improbability that randomness or RM can actually develop anything significant, even at the micro-level. They added NS and a few other "non-random" components to make evolution seem as though in concept as a goal-directed efficient process but with no goal directed intelligence. Darwinian fairies buzz around endlessly yet lacking any hard-scientific evidence for they're witches spell cookbook.

The Darwinian fairies fail to realize that reproduction is actually a feature of design. In programming, to translate code or to combine code we use other code to do that such as a complier. We all know that if you wanted to combine two programs into one, you would need the code from both programs and an intermediate code that will allow this combination to be efficient, identifcal languages make this combination more possible and efficient. The point is that technology can reproduce but only on the logical level which is basically the binary system or base 2 notation, 1 and 0. However, biological systems can reproduce on the logical(information) or base 4 and at the physical as well. Darwinian fairies fail to see this as a product of design, yet the watch analogy still holds based on this criteria.

Those Pesky,

You appropriately speak of probabilities when confronting the problem of how there are biological organisms. However, darwinian natural selection provides incremental steps of low probability that make this process extremenly plausible and indeed observable in the real world. Design on the other hand posits an intelligence which must be even more improbable than the objects that he/she/it produces. Therefore, we must provide an explanation for how this improbable being came to exist. Further, it may be suggested that this being is complex, irreducibly so. If this is the case, the being would then require a designer of its own. Also, I love how the idiot "those pesky" claims the watch analogy holds!!! We know watches are designed by humans.....but we don;t know whether the watches designers were designed. The evidence points to natural selection as our unconscious designer. But "those pesky" doesn't like this because this would suggest that he is groveling every sunday to an imaginary friend. Just remember, even if there is a "designer" what would make you think it would have any of the attributes, other than being an unjust, evil masoganist, of the god Yawheh? We must consider multiple designers, or one that is not omnibelevolent, possibly not omniscient, omipotent, omnipresent or transcendent (many of these fataly contradict one another anyway). Would you, Pesky, be able to come to the conclusion if the evidence warranted that the designer possibly has a beginning or end, and that it doesn't really give two shits about humans and is for all intents and purposes immoral according to our standards? Afterall, the designer must be still busy creating new organisms such as HIV to kill us. What a bastard.

P.S. Also, please don't give me some lame B.S. about not being able to know anything about the designer based on the effects of the designer. If some guy raped and killed your wife or mother, what would you conclude about that man?? Same holds true of this designer.

The Darwinian fairies have nothing short of old and lame arguments to counter the claims put forth. Darwinian sorcerers, use magical claims to support they're science while ID uses evidence to back up the claim for inherent design. The fairies revert to uninformed religious philosophical implications when they are unable to deal with the circumstances for design that ID proponents propose, simply because of the ignorance and the ignorant confidence of ruling out everything else except they're magical blends of Darwinian sorcery. Darwinian witches fly around in witches brooms, hats and black capes in scientific academia in order to feel more confident in they're magical propositions.
The Darwinian sorcerers seem more interested in the designer then ID is, the designer is not the objective of ID. They include making false claims about the designer and the designers character, it is readily easy to decrypt the real message put forth by the Darwinian sorcerers.

I honestly believe that none of the former commenter's listened to the podcast, but instead have broken down to childish game of name calling and finger pointing. This is very serious stuff, from outright bigotry of intelligent design to the fall of Judge Jones court case. Listen to the podcast before you start spreading your filth over internet. By the way, Dr. Robert Marks has been tenured for over 25 years. Being tenured was not a prerequisite to him supporting Intelligent Design.

"Therefore, we must provide an explanation for how this improbable being came to exist."

Darwinian fairies and failures continue to dismiss the intelligent goal directed component, they will continue to look for other explanations without considering the most obvious one, it is this ignorance by omitting ocamms razor, they forcefully try to make things much more complicated then it really is, in essence confusing themselves, and essentially making the theory loop indefinitely like a packet without STP traveling through a switched network with unknown destinations. The flying witches contain a dynamic wand that changes the evidence and the public peasants must follow wherever they point this magic wand, like dogs on a leash, or hyenas following the scented smell of witches deodorant. Omitting the most simple modern evidence of design, Darwinists create magical puzzles that are harmful for both sides of the equation. The witches have cast the spell of scented monkey doodle poop, whoever follows it may as well be join the banana sorcerers themselves.

"If some guy raped and killed your wife or mother, what would you conclude about that man?? Same holds true of this designer."

I'd say that he exposed himself and learned the true qualities of the religious teachings of modern Darwinian magical sorcery, from his magical cookbook ofcourse.

"Also, please don't give me some lame B.S. about not being able to know anything about the designer based on the effects of the designer."
The Darwinian sorcery has brought up the religious philosophical implications that has really nothing to do with ID, non-bio non-prof is referring to the God of the bible...or is he? The flying magical sorcerer has many issues about the designer and has his own ideas of what a designer can or can't do. It is however not the God of the bible he is referring too.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evilandsuffering.html

BTW, the Darwinian sorcerer as I said attempts to revert the topic to some other form he believes leaves ID powerless, however he does not attempt to investigate the arguments he is actually making, only that he makes them doesn't prove it has any logical consistencies. The point in the core of ID is the scientific evidence for design, the study of that evidence using design and engineering principles, and not the actual designer.

Those Pesky,

From the link you gave me:

"Most atheists assume that a personal God would only create a universe that is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. One cannot choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's an amazing simple logical principle."

Put yourself in god's perspective. You just created all these creatures with no evidence, in fact tons of evidence that is contrary to your existence and make them choose whether they believe or not. That is ridiculous. If there is a god(s), it is obvious that this is some sick game.

"The atheist also makes the assumption that all pain, suffering, and death are bad or evil. In fact, physical pain is absolutely vital to our survival. If we felt no pain, we would do things to ourselves that could be very destructive.17 For example, if we didn't feel pain when we touched a hot object, we would not react until we saw our flesh smoking. This is obviously not a good thing to do. Pain tells us we need to react to a situation before serious damage occurs."

This is the answer given under the section "Why pain is necessary". What is conveniently left out is why does god feel the need to allow EXCESS pain? If he is omniscient he must know there is horrible excess pain (starvation, sickness, murder, rape), if he is omnipotent he must be able to do something about it. He is claimed to be omnibelevolent ("In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.3 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.4"), however, why would a perfect, all good being allow such horrific suffering and torture of creations that he is supposed to love? Christian thinking is very odd indeed.

"God created humans in order to have a personal relationship with them, which He had with Adam and Eve before they sinned (Genesis 2). Jesus said that the first and foremost commandment was to "Love the Lord your God..."13 A personal relationship, characterized by the possibility of love, is only possible if created beings are given free will. If God had created the universe with no possibility of evil or sin, then the created beings would have had no free will, and, as such, would essentially be programmed computers."

How is "free-will" compatible with "omniscience"? If God knows ALL then he must know the future actions of ALL humans. The future humans must then fullfill this future otherwise God could only speak of probabilities of what his creatures would do. Probabilities indicate a level of ignorance, which is impossible for an omniscient being. Theologians and philosophers have never found a satisfactory answer to this. The closest answer is transcendentalism....but the average prayer believes god acts within space-time and it makes no sense to be both acting in space-time and outside it. What does "outside space-time" even mean?

I went to the link for "Why Does God hate amputees" and was given this evidence for Jesus healing an amputee:

"And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:50-51)"

Wow. Unfortunately this is hear-say. In any other serious public discourse, say court, we would not allow this as evidence. If god is something more than a bronze-age being, and truly loves his people and answers prayers, why don't miracles happen in which amputees are healed TODAY? No one even thinks of this because we know it is non-sense.

"The most powerful created being (the angel Satan) rebelled and led one third of the angels into opposition against God. Those humans who oppose or ignore God follow Satan into rebellion - either consciously or unconsciously."

This is the justification given for all the evil in the world. However, God supposedly created Satan. Thus, God created evil, Satan did not. If God really didn't want evil in the world he should be able to control it, unless he is not omnipotent. He must not care.

"The point in the core of ID is the scientific evidence for design, the study of that evidence using design and engineering principles, and not the actual designer."

What TPE doesn't quite grasp is that we can know the intentions of the agent from their actions. The designer is a wicked prick. Anyone not intoxicated with the poison of religion would see this plainly.

First off, I'm NOT gonna play your silly Harry Potter game, intentionally reverting the subject matter to discourse isn't going to achieve anything for you, except blither.
But anyways, since you are just another militant atheist with a agenda and lots of free time on your hands I will shortly go over the logical inconsistencies you present. If you would like to discuss more, join forum on that site (ofcourse you will not)

"Put yourself in god's perspective. You just created all these creatures with no evidence, in fact tons of evidence that is contrary to your existence and make them choose whether they believe or not. That is ridiculous. If there is a god(s), it is obvious that this is some sick game."

There is tons of evidence for Gods existence, you simply choose to ignore all of it, many don't look at the evidence nor do they care (its called faith) and most are not out to prove Gods existence, nobody needs to see the designer in order to believe the designer exists, just as I don't need to prove that someone actually created this monitor I'm looking at.

"This is the answer given under the section "Why pain is necessary". What is conveniently left out is why does god feel the need to allow EXCESS pain? If he is omniscient he must know there is horrible excess pain (starvation, sickness, murder, rape), if he is omnipotent he must be able to do something about it. He is claimed to be omnibelevolent ("In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.3 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.4"), however, why would a perfect, all good being allow such horrific suffering and torture of creations that he is supposed to love? Christian thinking is very odd indeed."

That is the essence of free will, free will enables us to have choice. We can either obey Gods laws, or go against God. The inconsistency here is that if God is perfect, shouldn't the creation be perfect as well?, well in the bible it indicates that its "good", not perfect, so deal with it. Perfect is not something we can talk about anyways as it is subject to mere opinion.

"How is "free-will" compatible with "omniscience"? If God knows ALL then he must know the future actions of ALL humans. The future humans must then fullfill this future otherwise God could only speak of probabilities of what his creatures would do. Probabilities indicate a level of ignorance, which is impossible for an omniscient being. Theologians and philosophers have never found a satisfactory answer to this. The closest answer is transcendentalism....but the average prayer believes god acts within space-time and it makes no sense to be both acting in space-time and outside it. What does "outside space-time" even mean?"

The logical fallacy here is that "God must know the future" if hes omniscience. Having infinite knowledge does not mean God will already know (or want to know) if you will be an atheist or a theist in the future. It means you decide the outcome because of the free-will you are given, God does not decide it for you, but that also does not mean God cannot look past it. I think you know what outside space time means.
God created the definition of time itself along with the rest of the universe, God is outside of time and is not subject to it as we are, due to God being eternal he does not die at age 75.

"Wow. Unfortunately this is hear-say. In any other serious public discourse, say court, we would not allow this as evidence. If god is something more than a bronze-age being, and truly loves his people and answers prayers, why don't miracles happen in which amputees are healed TODAY? No one even thinks of this because we know it is non-sense."

Well, miracles do happen today, perhaps healing amputees is outside of anyones ability, except God himself, wouldn't you think?, since Jesus who is God is not around physically. The doubt about Gods power today is in fact the same doubt that people had in Jesus's day. If Jesus DID heal someone today, it would still be doubtful because they would hastily try find a scientific explanation for it or call Jesus and all the witnesses a liar.

"This is the justification given for all the evil in the world. However, God supposedly created Satan. Thus, God created evil, Satan did not. If God really didn't want evil in the world he should be able to control it, unless he is not omnipotent. He must not care."

Lucifer was actually a good and worthy servant of God, but
Satan rebelled against God because he wanted to be God. Satan then perpetuated evil but was helpless against God's power, Satan knew the only way he could claim his glory would be to use Gods creation as a tool for power, because of the sinful imperfect nature of humans. God then provided deliverance from sin, which was Jesus Christ, as a token from God (the creator) to us, the creation that rebelled against God himself.

Non-bio-non-prof, I will not play your game any longer. I have already destroyed all your pathetic Neo-Darwinian arguments using mere hidden messages in my previous comments. One thing to note, is that you brought up religion into this discussion, I have not mentioned a word about the bible until your militant atheist message asked for it.

I agree with Bio Prof. The god he describes does not exist. He is made of straw. The God of the Bible isn't.

Hey! Anyone want to talk about the interview? I thought Professor Marks' indirect jab at Dawkins was very clever.

Al Prof, I'm sure you or any of the other Darwinian fairies have nothing to add to the design argument, your head fairy Dawkins has nothing to add either.

Al Prof, I'm sure you or any of the other Darwinian fairies have nothing to add to the design argument, your head fairy Dawkins has nothing to add either.

I agree with Bio Prof. The god he describes does not exist. He is made of straw. The God of the Bible isn't.

Hey! Anyone want to talk about the interview? I thought Professor Marks' indirect jab at Dawkins was very clever.

On Sunday, Kaizer said: "I honestly believe that none of the former commenter's [sic] listened to the podcast...."

Get used to the milieu, Kaizer. IDers don't want to learn anything. They only want to engage in the same tired arguments to validate their preconceived faith, and they merely presume thet any interview from the DI will support that faith. In a recent thread Neal started out his comment by saying rather proudly that he hadn't listened to the podcast, but would comment anyway! A rare admission, but a common occurrence.

Sorry to disappoint, Kaizer, but this humble commenter always listens to the podcast. How else would I have known thet Marks has tenure? Becuase he joked that he most probably would not have given the interview if he had not already safely been granted it.

Just above, Al Prof said: "Hey! Anyone want to talk about the interview?"

As to the interview, Marks entire contention is that proving evolution by computer simulation programs is hilarious, because you have to put as much "information"* into the program as you get out.

While Marks is an expert in crafting simulations, he seems to have a huge blind spot as to their nature. We input parameter information into a simulation---for evolution, a starting genome, environmental conditions, etc; for aircraft trainers,** current yoke position, throttle position, altimeter calibration, etc. But before that, we must input a set of rules that govern the manipulation of this data---for an aircraft, the effects of flaps on speed & lift, effects of air densities on thrust, etc; for evolution, mutation frequencies, fitness search strategies, etc.

These rules, along with the input data, probably do contain as much "information" as what comes out as output data showing how the input data changes under the assumed set of rules. What Marks is ignorant of---or, more likely, purposely blind to---is that a purpose of simulation is to determine whether or not the rules bear a resemblance to reality, not whether they produce new "information." This is entirely irrelevant to the simulation.

Simulations all have two phases. After humans design the proposed rules, we enter test sets of input data for which we already know the corresponding sets of output data. If the simulation produces the correct output data, we have verified the rules. Only after such validation do we proceed to the second phase and enter input data for which we do not have the corresponding future output data.

The value of aircraft simulators lies heavily in the second phase: we want to know where the aircrat will go for particular control settings and environmental conditions. The value of evolutionary simulations, on the other hand, lies mainly in rule verification: if the simulation produces effects similar to those oserved in nature, then we have more confidence that evolution actually happens according to those rules.

Marks seems not to understand this important difference. His expertise in simulation does not qualify him to understand how evolutionary simulations are used. And, in any event, Marks seems not to understand the overall philosophy of simulations in general; thier purpose is not to create new "information." Simone, of course, seemed to create a lot of information that was not fed into "her". But please remember that this was only a movie, not a true story.

==========
*--"Information" is in quotes here to signify the loose sense that IDers employ, rather than the formal definition used in communications theory and biology.

**--One of several personal experiences with large simulators was in the Microsoft Combat Air Simulator. I was involved during the design of "intelligent" enemy pilots who try to shoot you down. I'm here to tell you that the amount of intelligence for good realism was not very much, that the algorithms were in fact quite simple-minded

The DI's "Evolution News & Views" yesterday (July 22) posted more info about the soi-disant "Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory" at Baylor. See http://evolutionnews.org/2007/07/william_dembski_addresses_fort.html. New material includes part of an interview with Bill Dembski, who will collaborate with Marks. (Dembski again whines about a "conspiracy" in the closing of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor. In fact, that was Dembski's own fault.) As with the DI's vaunted Biologics Institute, there is no hint as to exactly what subjects the Evo Info Lab will pursue, or what results are expected, just that "mathematical rigor" will be employed.

Pau hana wrote:
> Wow, the Discovery Institute snagged another college professor. (He admits that he came out of the closet only after he got tenure!)

Can't blame him, can you?

> The DI's list of "700 scientists who have doubts about Darwinism" is heavy with computer-science people such as Marks. These people are designers themselves, and tend to see designs everywhere...

If there is a disproportionate number of biologists on this list, perhaps the problem is that they are not designers, and thus they fail to see design anywhere.

> Actually, Darwinian natural selection is a form of design. Random mutations are culled to produce organisms that are thereby 'designed' to fit their environment...

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, or neutral at best, so while NS may have the potential to improve things, RM as a mechanism appears to be much better at losing function and information rather gaining improved function or obtaining new information. They do not appear to make a very good team.

>In the same way, we consider snowflakes to have designs, but do not inquire as to their designer.
Sorry Pau, but snow (and ice) do not even begin to compare with a cell. You and Bio Prof need to come up with better analogies. Why is the watch analogy considered idiotic while the ice/snow analogy is upheld? The logic behind this escapes me.

> In the DI 700 list, note that almost none of the scientists have any knowlwdge of biology. Most are computer science, civil engineers, mathematicians, and others who have little background in any relevant subject matter.

Speaking of relevant subject matter, I wonder how many biologists out there have an adequate grasp of chemistry or biochemistry. I would think these fields should be at least as relevant as biology.

Bio Prof,

Wow, what a diatribe! You make some harsh judgments and ask some very difficult (but good) questions, but is this a fair attack on intelligent design? Clearly, your disagreements over intelligent design have less to do with design itself than with the nature and character of the potential designer.

Anyways, I know that TPE already addressed much of your post, so I’ll try and give my perspective without repeating too much of what TPE said. Since you brought religion and the Bible into this discussion, I also will try and answer some of your questions and comments (out of order) using the Bible (and my interpretation of it), where applicable. I know that my answers fall well short of adequate explaining all these issues, but they provide enough answers for me. I realize this may come across as complete religious hogwash to you, but I hope they are informative and provide some insight for you, at least into how some Christians think.

>Just remember, even if there is a "designer" what would make you think it would have any of the attributes, other than being an unjust, evil masoganist, of the god Yawheh? ... The designer is a wicked prick.

I find it ironic yet somewhat amusing that you in your Darwinist/evolutionist mindset pass judgment on the character of the designer, who may or may not be the Judeo-Christian God. Who are you to judge whether or not God is evil? If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and is not concerned about good and evil. Good and evil should be irrelevant. But since morality is important to you, please continue reading.

>If there is a god(s), it is obvious that this is some sick game.

You call this a “sick game”. In my belief system, I would say you are not too far from the truth. For greater insight into this confusing “sick game” we call “life”, I recommend that you read the book of Job, found in the Bible. As a Christian, I find it quite illuminating.

>... however, why would a perfect, all good being allow such horrific suffering and torture of creations that he is supposed to love? Christian thinking is very odd indeed.
>If God really didn't want evil in the world he should be able to control it, unless he is not omnipotent. He must not care.

Good question. I do not believe it was ever God’s will that anybody or anything should suffer or die. God gave us free-will, the freedom to make choices. God could have created preprogrammed automatons which continually do His bidding, and perhaps He has, I don’t know. But apparently God wanted a more meaningful relationship with humans. Jesus said (in John 4:23) that God seeks people who worship Him in spirit and in truth. Automatons cannot have this sincere kind of relationship with their creator.

While giving us free-will, God also allows us to experience the consequences of our choices. In creating free-will beings, God allowed the possibility for sin to enter the world, and it did, and with it came pain and suffering and death. In fact, I believe that sin is the inevitable result of God creating free-will beings. Does that mean God created sin? I do not believe so, He didn’t cause anybody to sin (not Lucifer nor Adam/Eve nor anybody else), but by granting free-will He did allow for it to happen. But God also provided a plan to rescue his creation from the ultimate consequences of sin (which is death, see Romans 6:23), by sending His Son to die for us sinners (that includes the entire human race – see Romans 3:23). You say that God is evil, or at best, indifferent. The Bible makes it clear that God devised this rescue plan out of love for us (see John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 for starters), and He paid the highest possible price to redeem us. How does God feel about the wicked? See Ezekiel 33:11 and Isaiah 55:7.

Regarding pain and suffering... sometimes we simply reap the consequences of our choices, but in other instances, I think Job chapters 1 and 2 reveals the real villain responsible for pain and suffering, and that is Satan. Revelation 12:9 says that Satan was cast out of heaven and to the earth, and Jesus calls Satan the “prince of this world” (John 16:11). Rev. 12:12 says that the devil is filled with fury. So what does that make earth? To me, it means planet earth IS hell. However, this will not last. Jesus said (again in John 16:11) that the “prince of the world” stands condemned, and He promised that He will come back again (John 14:3), and He will destroy this planet (2 Peter 3:10) and Satan, and all of Satan’s followers (Rev. 20:7-10). God will create a new earth, and there will be no more death or pain (see Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5).

Also, even though God is omnipotent and immortal, God also feels pain. The best example illustrating this is found in Genesis 6:5-7. Also, God permitted His Son Jesus to endure pain while on earth.

>This is the justification given for all the evil in the world. However, God supposedly created Satan. Thus, God created evil, Satan did not.

God did create Lucifer, but He did not “create” Satan per se'. Lucifer was originally blameless, and was a “covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), meaning, he often stood in the presence of God, and thus he was probably one of the highest ranking angels in heaven. It says in Ezekiel 28:15 that wickedness WAS FOUND in him (Lucifer). Lucifer became proud (Eze. 28:17), and Isaiah 14:14 says that Lucifer wanted to be in the place of God. Lucifer caused a rebellion in heaven (Eze. 28:17, Rev. 12:7-9), but he was cast to the earth. And now he is pissed, and is trying to make God and all of God’s creation pay. But God will make everything right in the end.

TPE wrote - “First off, I'm NOT gonna (sic) play your silly Harry Potter game, intentionally reverting the subject matter to discourse isn't going to achieve anything for you, except blither.”

What a drama queen. So if you were not going to play Bio Prof’s silly Harry Potter game, why did you? Just to entertain me?

TPE wrote – “Non-bio-non-prof, I will not play your game any longer. I have already destroyed all your pathetic Neo-Darwinian arguments using mere hidden messages in my previous comments. One thing to note, is that you brought up religion into this discussion, I have not mentioned a word about the bible until your militant atheist message asked for it.”

Hidden messages? Have you spent too much time solving the puzzles on the back of your box of Lucky Charms? Perhaps we have underestimated you tpe. I think I will call you Conan – the Destroyer of Neo-Darwinian Arguments from now on. Or just CDNDA for short.

It was nice to hear you speak of your god. I’ve tried to get you to confess your need for illogical, irrational, bronze-aged mystic fairy tales but never had any success. Bio Prof did a wonderful job here.

So I suppose that you believe that your god is the only real god and that all the others are false - meaning that the followers of all the other gods are wrong and are going to hell.

You probably also believe that your god created the entire universe – a very big place – just for you and your christian buddies here on this miniscule little planet in a lost little corner of said universe. (This is your big chance to bring up the goldie locks zone and to misconstrue the anthropic principle – don’t want you to miss it!)

And you probably also believe that this god has the time and the interest to follow your every move, to listen to your dribble and to monitor your thoughts (better stop thinking about Paris Hilton in that prison outfit). Your pathetic little life holds great interest to him and you allow him the ultimate copout. If he doesn’t give you what you pray for, it must not be in his grand and wonderful plan for your life.

And you profess to accept all of this on faith. Yet when your bible tells you that creation took place in just one week, you accept enough of man’s wicked knowledge of the world to either question the length of god’s creation days, or to find some other justification that allows you to believe man’s word over that of god. Shameful. Otherwise, you’d be a yec and would likely have as much of a problem with IDC as I do, only for entirely different reasons. It’s an amazing little world of give and take, of bizarre beliefs and rationalizations that you have made for yourself. It would make a great basis for a horror movie. Conan meets Harry Potter in the Quest for Paris’ Panties.

In response to Pau hana's snowflake analogy, Rebely said: "Sorry Pau, but snow (and ice) do not even begin to compare with a cell. You and Bio Prof need to come up with better analogies. Why is the watch analogy considered idiotic while the ice/snow analogy is upheld? The logic behind this escapes me."

Here's the logic. A watch is complex, and a snowflake is complex. The watch we know was produced by (human) intelligence, the snowflake we know was produced according to laws of nature. The question is, is one anlogy closer to a cell than the other? Does either one have any validity?

Complexity, as such, has little to do with the issue. A cell is more complex that a watch. On the other hand, watches have no reproductive organs. If they did perhaps they would evolve. Reproduction, however, is only one of the major differences between human-designed and biological sysems that throws suspicion on the watch/cell analogy. Does your watch have a lot of parts that don't do anything? (Fossil genes) Can you order a new watch of the same model (species) that's a few millimeters larger or smaller than the one in the display case? (Natural variation among populations) Did your watch grow from a tiny 3-minute egg? (Evo-devo) Is your watch the survivor of numerous other watches who fell to predators such as fearsome Tyrannosaurus Clox? (Natural selection) Can you determine the relationship of your watch to other watches by analyzing random scratches on it? (Genetic fingerprinting)

Actually, complexity can be an argument for evolution as well as for design. (Remember that the Kolmogorov theorem says that a system at maximum complexity is entirely random.) IDers tend to reject "bad design" arguments in terms of structures such as the appendix. But consider that a lotof the complexity of a cell involves poor, overlapping, redundant, and suboptimal functions. (The researchers who wish to create life from scratch spend most of their time trying to get rid of the complexity of real cells---to simplify them.) Certainly, components are reused in human designs. But why are opsin proteins found in bacteria, which have no eyes or other light sensors? And why are they also expressed in the animals' livers, where thay have an entirely different function, as well as in animal eyes? Why are genetic codes underused, with both multiple synonymous forms and forms that don't code for anything? Why does the onion need a genome FIVE TIMES as large as its next-door neighbor in the the carrot patch? Why do genes have random, strictly ornamental, inclusions (SINES & LINES) whose only purpose is to tell one individual from another? (This is the basis of DNA fingerprinting and of genetic evolutionary histories among species.)

Moreover, if you pursue the watch/cell anlogy for religious purposes, please consider another aspect. The watch was not producedd by a single designer. That partiular watch had multiple designers for its mechanism---and other designers of its ormolu case, and additional designers of the jewelled bearings, and further designers of the scratch-resistant glass in its face. And the designer of that watch didn't do it from scratch; he culled aspects from an army of designers of previous watches. Even a cave-man's stone axe sprang from many designers: rock chippers, woodworkers, thong makers. Every model of an automobile or an aircraft requires thousands of individual designers. If biological systems are more complex, they must have required untold millions of designers. Remember that ID knows absolutely nothing about---and refuses even to speculate upon---the nature, characteristics, abilities, or purposes of this purported intelligence. How is it possible to judge whether the intelligence might have, or could have, produced any specific biological organism? (Oh, sorry---your Designer is omniscient, omnipotent, and unknowable. In that case, the existence of poor design or quirky trade-offs becomes even more problematic, doesn't it?)

Finally, problems with Darwinian evolution do not permit an inference of intelligent design. This is a false dichotomy perpretrated by ID. How about somthing like Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogentic fields" (q.v.)? Now there's a natural, non-intelligent candidate for biologic system configurations. Natural solutions other than Darwin's are possible. So the design inference requires _positive_, evidence just as evolution and any other scientific theory do. Even the most deeply ensanded ID ostrich must admit that evolution occurs to some degree---we can all see uncontested examples. But no one has ever pointed out a single instance of design, large or small: no specific tweak of an amino acid, no particular novel gene, no animal limb without a precursor. Wiitgenstein said you can recognize a class from examples of the class. But we have no exemplars of intelligent design to compare---we don't even know what one would look like.

The watch analogy should have died with William Paley. "Confutatis maledictis/ Flammis acribus addictis," as the Requiem Mass says.
=== = = === = === = === = ==========

> The watch analogy should have died with William Paley. "Confutatis maledictis/ Flammis acribus addictis," as the Requiem Mass says.
>

Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.

Fac ut vivas.

Pau hana said:
>Here's the logic.

Thank you, Pau, for the very thoughtful and detailed explanation.

>A watch is complex, and a snowflake is complex.

The snowflake contains order, but it is not complex, that is the problem I have with this analogy.

>The watch we know was produced by (human) intelligence, the snowflake we know was produced according to laws of nature. The question is, is one anlogy closer to a cell than the other? Does either one have any validity?

The watch contains multiple interacting parts that all work together to perform a function. For this reason alone it is a much closer analogy to the cell than the snowflake. But you are right, watches do not reproduce, so watches make an inadequate analogy for the cell. So what gives the snowflake analogy any more validity than the watch?

>Complexity, as such, has little to do with the issue. A cell is more complex that a watch...

Agreed, by leaps and bounds. So then, why isn’t design evident? Is there any example (other than the cell) of a complex object (reproducing or not) that performs a function but that we know of that is NOT designed?

> But why are opsin proteins found in bacteria, which have no eyes or other light sensors?

Probably a result of lateral gene transfer from bacteria that do have light sensors.

>And why are they also expressed in the animals' livers, where thay have an entirely different function, as well as in animal eyes?

As you said, they have an entirely different function.

>Why are genetic codes underused, with both multiple synonymous forms and forms that don't code for anything? Why does the onion need a genome FIVE TIMES as large as its next-door neighbor in the the carrot patch?

Mo-bio is still a young field, and we constantly learning something new about the genome all the time, I’m sure we’ll figure it out. The percentage of “useless” DNA in the genome has substantially decreased over the years.

>Why do genes have random, strictly ornamental, inclusions (SINES & LINES) whose only purpose is to tell one individual from another? (This is the basis of DNA fingerprinting and of genetic evolutionary histories among species.)

To make each of us unique, of course!

>Moreover, if you pursue the watch/cell anlogy for religious purposes, please consider another aspect...The watch was not producedd by a single designer... If biological systems are more complex, they must have required untold millions of designers.

Granted, they “may” have millions of designers, but they “need not” have that many. Remember, MY Designer is omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

>Remember that ID knows absolutely nothing about---and refuses even to speculate upon---the nature, characteristics, abilities, or purposes of this purported intelligence.

Agreed. Which also means that the nature, characteristics, etc. cannot be used as a basis for attack on ID. Are you reading this Bio Prof? Grrr

>How is it possible to judge whether the intelligence might have, or could have, produced any specific biological organism?

I don’t have any problem making such a judgment. The origin of a cell due to undirected, natural processes is extremely problematic. Once natural processes are ruled out, design is the only thing left (that I know of).

>(Oh, sorry---your Designer is omniscient, omnipotent, and unknowable.

Omniscient – yes, omnipotent – yes. But not unknowable (except perhaps, by our current definition of science which precludes supernatural causes).

>In that case, the existence of poor design or quirky trade-offs becomes even more problematic, doesn't it?)

I don’t consider it problematic. In some cases the “poor design” that we see is the conclusion we come to when we do not understand how something works. In other cases, it may be due to loss of information due to random mutation.

>Finally, problems with Darwinian evolution do not permit an inference of intelligent design.

Perhaps not directly, but one must become suspicious when the problems start to pile up. The problem with many proponents of Darwinian evolution is that the answer (i.e. Darwinian evolution) is often already presumed, and if something does not neatly fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is just a matter of inventing some new Darwinian mechanism to try to explain it.

>But no one has ever pointed out a single instance of design, large or small: no specific tweak of an amino acid, no particular novel gene, no animal limb without a precursor.

Are you saying that these would be positive evidence for design? Well, if we did find something novel gene or limb, that would certainly pose another problem for evolution. But, as you said, components are reused in human designs, and I see no reason why this wouldn’t also be the case for biological systems.

>Wiitgenstein said you can recognize a class from examples of the class. But we have no exemplars of intelligent design to compare---we don't even know what one would look like.

Sorry Pau, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Humans are intelligent designers, and the things that we make are examples of that.

>The watch analogy should have died with William Paley.

Well, I think the watch analogy still has some utility. But if it must die, let’s bury it with the ice analogy.

[There is tons of evidence for Gods existence, you simply choose to ignore all of it, many don't look at the evidence nor do they care (its called faith) and most are not out to prove Gods existence, nobody needs to see the designer in order to believe the designer exists, just as I don't need to prove that someone actually created this monitor I'm looking at.]

Ah, so you are just another theist with an agenda. I can turn this around on you, friend. Also, you claim I have too much time....you are doing the same thing.

["This is the answer given under the section "Why pain is necessary". What is conveniently left out is why does god feel the need to allow EXCESS pain? If he is omniscient he must know there is horrible excess pain (starvation, sickness, murder, rape), if he is omnipotent he must be able to do something about it. He is claimed to be omnibelevolent ("In fact, the Bible indicates that God is love.3 The Bible also indicates that God is perfect.4"), however, why would a perfect, all good being allow such horrific suffering and torture of creations that he is supposed to love? Christian thinking is very odd indeed."

That is the essence of free will, free will enables us to have choice. We can either obey Gods laws, or go against God. The inconsistency here is that if God is perfect, shouldn't the creation be perfect as well?, well in the bible it indicates that its "good", not perfect, so deal with it. Perfect is not something we can talk about anyways as it is subject to mere opinion.]

Our free-will or god's? Let's assume for arguments sake god exists. It is his free-will that allows excess suffering in the world, not ours. You theists want to turn everything around on us. However, the ultimate cause of evil and suffering is god. If he didn't want such a thing, he could have "designed" us to not want to inflict pain on one another, and he could have set things up so that resources weren't limiting, etc. etc. You defend him like a battered wife protects her abusive husband, "he didn't mean to hit me, it was my fault." In both instances, the reasoning is fatuous.

["How is "free-will" compatible with "omniscience"? If God knows ALL then he must know the future actions of ALL humans. The future humans must then fullfill this future otherwise God could only speak of probabilities of what his creatures would do. Probabilities indicate a level of ignorance, which is impossible for an omniscient being. Theologians and philosophers have never found a satisfactory answer to this. The closest answer is transcendentalism....but the average prayer believes god acts within space-time and it makes no sense to be both acting in space-time and outside it. What does "outside space-time" even mean?"

The logical fallacy here is that "God must know the future" if hes omniscience. Having infinite knowledge does not mean God will already know (or want to know) if you will be an atheist or a theist in the future. It means you decide the outcome because of the free-will you are given, God does not decide it for you, but that also does not mean God cannot look past it. I think you know what outside space time means.
God created the definition of time itself along with the rest of the universe, God is outside of time and is not subject to it as we are, due to God being eternal he does not die at age 75.]

By your logic, god is not all-knowing. If he cannot know with certainty what you will do he is not 'all knowing'. If god is outside space-time he is impotent to do things like answer prayers and stop suffering....hey, maybe thats why he allows it. Praying is very nicely shown to be illogical here:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

["Wow. Unfortunately this is hear-say. In any other serious public discourse, say court, we would not allow this as evidence. If god is something more than a bronze-age being, and truly loves his people and answers prayers, why don't miracles happen in which amputees are healed TODAY? No one even thinks of this because we know it is non-sense."

Well, miracles do happen today, perhaps healing amputees is outside of anyones ability, except God himself, wouldn't you think?, since Jesus who is God is not around physically. The doubt about Gods power today is in fact the same doubt that people had in Jesus's day. If Jesus DID heal someone today, it would still be doubtful because they would hastily try find a scientific explanation for it or call Jesus and all the witnesses a liar.]

SO if Jesus is not here physically, no healing can be achieved? That means he, who is himself his father and a holy ghost is not omnipotent since he is limited to the physical realm according to you....however, I thought he was outside space-time. Apparently, he was for one instance...but how did he transcend being outside to inside if he is relegated to outside? Maybe he can be both outside and inside, and if so, why not heal amputees since if he is inside space-time he must be what we would call "physical". Your logic is inconsistent. You are trying so desperately to reconsile your logical mind with nonsensical superstition and this is the result.

"This is the justification given for all the evil in the world. However, God supposedly created Satan. Thus, God created evil, Satan did not. If God really didn't want evil in the world he should be able to control it, unless he is not omnipotent. He must not care."

Lucifer was actually a good and worthy servant of God, but
Satan rebelled against God because he wanted to be God. Satan then perpetuated evil but was helpless against God's power, Satan knew the only way he could claim his glory would be to use Gods creation as a tool for power, because of the sinful imperfect nature of humans. God then provided deliverance from sin, which was Jesus Christ, as a token from God (the creator) to us, the creation that rebelled against God himself.

Non-bio-non-prof, I will not play your game any longer. I have already destroyed all your pathetic Neo-Darwinian arguments using mere hidden messages in my previous comments. One thing to note, is that you brought up religion into this discussion, I have not mentioned a word about the bible until your militant atheist message asked for it.

["This is the justification given for all the evil in the world. However, God supposedly created Satan. Thus, God created evil, Satan did not. If God really didn't want evil in the world he should be able to control it, unless he is not omnipotent. He must not care."

Lucifer was actually a good and worthy servant of God, but
Satan rebelled against God because he wanted to be God. Satan then perpetuated evil but was helpless against God's power, Satan knew the only way he could claim his glory would be to use Gods creation as a tool for power, because of the sinful imperfect nature of humans. God then provided deliverance from sin, which was Jesus Christ, as a token from God (the creator) to us, the creation that rebelled against God himself.]

So God, as an omniscient being didn't see Satan's betrayal coming. What good is omniscience if you don't know anything 5 seconds in advance....maybe God is using guesses and probabilities like the rest of us. My point is that if god is omnipotent and omnibelevolent as you Christians claim Satan should be no problem for God. Therefore, either god is impotent or doesn't care to prevent evil and suffering. In either case free-will is logically impossible with an omniscient being. God will know every event in the universe at any point in time if he is truly omniscient, meaning that we only perceive free-will on our end. If we truly had free-will, god could only speak of probabilities in what we will do and he would not be all knowing, not all powerful to change our minds. He is thus not omniscient or omnipotent if we have free-will.

[Non-bio-non-prof, I will not play your game any longer. I have already destroyed all your pathetic Neo-Darwinian arguments using mere hidden messages in my previous comments. One thing to note, is that you brought up religion into this discussion, I have not mentioned a word about the bible until your militant atheist message asked for it.]

You brought up religion by positing a supernatural intelligent designer. You and I both know that everyone pushing ID is doing so to promulgate christianity. You have provided more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that you are doing the same thing. You also won't "play my game" because you know that your arguments are ridiculous. Michael Behe even admitted that the designer must have created, recently I might add, horrible pathogens specifically meant to infect and kill us. Your god is a monster.

Rebely, thanks for your considered reply.

> So what gives the snowflake analogy any more validity than the watch?

My view is the third of the possibilities that I had mentioned: that neither the snowflake nor the watch is appropriate to cells. (The snwflake is mostly a counter to the creationist argument that intelligence is required to produce "order.")

>> But why are opsin proteins found in bacteria, which have no eyes or other light sensors?
> Probably a result of lateral gene transfer from bacteria that do have light sensors.

The pimary function of opsin (bacteriorhodopsin) in bacteria is to pump certain ions across their membranes, for signalling purposes. Some bacteria, such as the eukaryote Euglena, do have primitive light spots---that is, opsin protein has been exapted to perform another function.

>>Why are genetic codes underused, with both multiple synonymous forms and forms that don't code for anything? ....
> Mo-bio is still a young field, and we constantly learning something new about the genome all the time, I’m sure we’ll figure it out. The percentage of “useless” DNA in the genome has substantially decreased over the years.

True, but that doesn't answer the question---the widely applied "onion test" (also known as the "salamander paradox"). The percentage of junk DNA varies greatly. The onion has a lot, carrots have much less, yet have essentially the same functionality in terms of gene expression and control. Who would build such a kludge on purpose?

One human parasite (sorry, senior moment in recalling which) has 5000 genes, all but 1400 of which are fossils. There is no doubt that they don't do anything at all. They degraded when the bug began to rely on its host for many of its own functions. In terms of so-called junk DNA, I think it is instructive to note that the DI trumpeted its "God don't make no junk" prediction, but then did absolutively nothing to verify it. All of the junk-DNA functions that have been discovered have been discovered by evolutionary scientists. (At the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, Michael Behe was asked why he hadn't investigated any of his ideas to verify them in the lab. He replied that it would be "a waste of his time.") Most junk DNA is still junk, BTW.

>>Remember that ID knows absolutely nothing about---and refuses even to speculate upon---the nature, characteristics, abilities, or purposes of this purported intelligence.
>Agreed. Which also means that the nature, characteristics, etc. cannot be used as a basis for attack on ID.

Au contraire. That is precisely why it _can_ be used to attack ID. Because of this failing, ID can't be falsified by any scientific test. In response to negative findings, ID just says, "well, we can't know what the Designer had in mind." Remember that all scientific theories require postulating a mechanism. ID, which proudly admits that it is limited to "detecting" design, and does _not_ propose a model, therefore has no value to scientific research. (Darwin's model is variation within populations, overfecundity, natural---and sexual, etc---selection, and common descent.) Note that ID makes much of unexpected results and wrong predictions in evolutioonary research. Your comment that "The problem with many proponents of Darwinian evolution is that the answer (i.e. Darwinian evolution) is often already presumed, and if something does not neatly fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is just a matter of inventing some new Darwinian mechanism to try to explain it" is absolutely true. Since there is already so much evidence for it, as long as we can stay within the basic Darwinian model, we shall attempt to modify the details of the model to accommodate the new data. (Newton discovered unexpected perturbations in the planetary orbits, and was at a complete loss to explain them. Was his theory scrapped? No. Laplace later explained them, and in fact they served as a basis for discovering several new planets.)

>>Finally, problems with Darwinian evolution do not permit an inference of intelligent design.
>Perhaps not directly, but one must become suspicious when the problems start to pile up.

You're missing the point, which was that negative evidence as to evolution is far different than positive evidence of design. Absence of one does not imply presence of the other. This is a false dichotomy. It's like saying that evidence against Einsteinian relativity is evidence of my theory that the universe is held together with superglue. I mentioned one possible alternative: Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields." I ran across another one just yesterday (I'm interested in all kinds of crank science): Prof. Robert Herrman, late of the US Naval Academy (which we non-grad USN officers refer to as "Canoe U"), has a theory modestly entitled "The General Theory of Everything." Althgough dealing primarily with cosmology, it also purports to explain the genesis of biological systems. A persistent unanswered criticism of William Dembski's Explantory Filter is that it measures design only against a single null hypothesis, not against _all_ such hypotehses. (See, e.g., http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/rev_nfl_wre_capsule.html, 2002)

>>Wiitgenstein said you can recognize a class from examples of the class. But we have no exemplars of intelligent design to compare---we don't even know what one would look like.
>Sorry Pau, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Humans are intelligent designers, and the things that we make are examples of that.

Yes, we have examples of human-designed objects, we know the physical and mental capbilities of humans, and we know the purposes for which humans design various objects. Therefore, we can generalize from a set of objects that we have actually seen human beings design, to deterimine whether it is likely that other, newly found objects may have been designed by humans. Now, change "humans" in that statement to "a purported designer of biological systems." The point is that we _cannot_ make that statement as to the purported designer of living organisms. We have _no_ uncontested examples of His (sic) handiwork.

>Well, I think the watch analogy still has some utility.

Disagree.

>But if it must die, let’s bury it with the ice analogy.

Agree.

Pau hana said:
>>?Why are genetic codes underused, with both multiple synonymous forms and forms that don't code for anything? ....
>> Mo-bio is still a young field, and we constantly learning something new about the genome all the time, I’m sure we’ll figure it out. The percentage of “useless” DNA in the genome has substantially decreased over the years.
>True, but that doesn't answer the question---the widely applied "onion test" (also known as the "salamander paradox"). The percentage of junk DNA varies greatly. The onion has a lot, carrots have much less, yet have essentially the same functionality in terms of gene expression and control. Who would build such a kludge on purpose?

Good point. Let’s say the scientists are right, and that onions (and other organisms with the same apparent problem) have far more DNA than they will possibly ever need or use. This poses a great energetic cost to the onion with no benefit, and would result in decreased growth rates. If most of it is junk or unnecessary, why hasn’t natural selection “selected” it out by now? Surely a more efficient ancestor with far less DNA would have superceded it. Perhaps natural selection isn’t as powerful as biologists claim.

BTW, has anybody ever attempted or succeeded in growing an onion (or anything else) without all that “junk DNA”? Is the “new” onion still an onion? If so, are there any differences?

>Most junk DNA is still junk, BTW.

Until of course, those evolutionary scientists figure out what the junk DNA is for. Which may not happen if they give up because they feel it is a waste of time.

>>>Remember that ID knows absolutely nothing about---and refuses even to speculate upon---the nature, characteristics, abilities, or purposes of this purported intelligence.
>>Agreed. Which also means that the nature, characteristics, etc. cannot be used as a basis for attack on ID.
>Au contraire. That is precisely why it _can_ be used to attack ID.

Sure, one _can_ attack ID based on the nature, characteristics, etc. of the purported intelligence, but it still doesn’t _prove_ anything. Even if every religion in the world could be proven wrong, that would not prove that life was not designed.

>Because of this failing, ID can't be falsified by any scientific test...

Of course, let us not forget that there are many claims of evolution that cannot be tested.

>...Since there is already so much evidence for it, as long as we can stay within the basic Darwinian model, we shall attempt to modify the details of the model to accommodate the new data. (Newton discovered unexpected perturbations in the planetary orbits, and was at a complete loss to explain them. Was his theory scrapped? No. Laplace later explained them, and in fact they served as a basis for discovering several new planets.)

Eventually it was found that Newtonian (classical) mechanics was insufficient to explain the behavior of microscopic (atomic and subatomic) particles, and so the classical description of these particles had to be abandoned to give birth to a new theory, quantum mechanics.

>>>Finally, problems with Darwinian evolution do not permit an inference of intelligent design.
>>Perhaps not directly, but one must become suspicious when the problems start to pile up.
>You're missing the point, which was that negative evidence as to evolution is far different than positive evidence of design.

Yes I agree with your statement, and no, I did not miss your point, of course problems with one theory do not provide positive evidence for another. I was saying that one should become skeptical or suspicious when problems start piling up with one theory. Evolution explains many things well, but it also fails to explain many other things. As classical mechanics had to make room for quantum mechanics, evolution needs to be set aside and people should consider alternative explanations for cases when evolution fails.

>Absence of one does not imply presence of the other.

In most cases that is true. In this case we have evolution, or design, or possibly both. What other possibilities exist?

>I mentioned one possible alternative: Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields."...

I did miss your point here. What exactly are “Morphogenetic fields” an alternative to?

>>>Wiitgenstein said you can recognize a class from examples of the class. But we have no exemplars of intelligent design to compare---we don't even know what one would look like.
>>Sorry Pau, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Humans are intelligent designers, and the things that we make are examples of that.
>...we can generalize from a set of objects that we have actually seen human beings design, to deterimine whether it is likely that other, newly found objects may have been designed by humans. Now, change "humans" in that statement to "a purported designer of biological systems." The point is that we _cannot_ make that statement as to the purported designer of living organisms.

Thanks for clarifying that. But I disagree with the argument. I _can_ generalize from a set of objects that I have seen humans design, to assess whether or not _any_ particular object was likely to be designed. How? By extension of my experience with human design. And because I know of no example of a complex object that performs a function that was not designed.

>We have _no_ uncontested examples of His (sic) handiwork.

True. If we did, there would be no need for debate.

Rebely, in the interest of time, let me try to answer your points in terms of the natures of scientific theories in generasl and Darwinian evolution in particular.

Starting with Francis Bacon's "Novum Organum" in the 16thC, "science" left behind the Greek telic model that had powered Aristotle's physics, alchemy, astrology, and other concepts that we now regard as quaint. Thes "New Instrumentalities": of modern science, which developed obver the naext century, limited science to _natural_ models for physical phenomena. We now call this "methodological naturalism." _Super_natural causation was and is fuled out by fiat. Science does not study phenomena outside ther pale of natural law. The object of science is understanding and control. By definition, supernatural beings are unknowable and uncontrollable. (Well, unless you believe in augury and sorcery.)

ID's problem with science is that it implies a supernatural designer---one who makes arbitrary choices. And who is thus not understandable or controllable. This is why I say that ID is not even wrong. It's not science, and it's a waste of effort to consider it. You may disagree that the ID designer is supernatural. But the Discovery Institute and its fine fellows say it is, only unless they're talking to school boards (wink, wink).

Now, if we could build a scientific mechanism or model of this intelligence that would allow us to study and control any natural aspects of it, scientists wpould not be opposed to ID as such. But all ID proponents limit themselves merely to "detecting" design; they all resist, avoid, and abhor any investigation into the designer or its designs. Michael Behe says "it would be a waste of my time." William Dembski gores father: "Any inquiry into the nature of the designer is a theological question." Phillip Johnson said: "It's not about science. It's about philosophy and religion."

The scientific (i.e., naturalistic) model of Darwinian evolution (DE) is, again, variation in populations, inheritance of variations, overfecundity, selection by ecological, sexual, groups, or other natural factors, and common ancestry to earlier forms. (Michael Behe, BTW, is freely admits that all of these factors are true, and argues only that the _variation_ is not random, but designed.) This broad model allows a lot of wiggle room for alternative details. I would divide DE into 4 time phases. The original concept was based upon variation in populations, and included geographic distributions, fossils,and similar macroscopic evidence. The second phase began with the (re)discovery of Mendel's work in inheritance of variation. These 2 pahases encompassed the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s-40s. Still only macrosciopic evidence. The disvory of DNA, the mechanism of inheritance powered the 3d phase. Now the microscopic evidence could be investigated. This phase has provided, for example, further evidence and revisions of of common descent through DNA fingerprinting. One aspect, however, was still lacking. We could, for instance, investigate the opsin proteins of different species, and patterning of fur and insect wings. But the origin and development of gross structures---eyes, wings, etc---was still confined to the fossils and other aspects of the macroscopic evidence. However, scientists are now entering the 4th phase, in which microscopic DNA variations are traced to macroscopic anatomical features by the methods of "evo-devo." This 4th phase is only a few years old, but already promises many results; see Sean Carroll's book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful."

Evidence from these 4 phases will, I think, complete the areas in which DE will be able to show that ID is wrong and uneccssary. THe DI likes to say that continued research only produces more "problems" with DE. For one thing, this is true of every theory. There is no scientific theory that is "finished," sufficiently that we conduct no further research into it. And the reason we conduct research into any theory is that we find unexpected results: "problems," if you will. Neal, in other threads, continually complains that public funds are being expended to "prove" DE. He doesn't understand the nature and goals of research. Much biological research _confirms_ DE, but it's purpose is to obtain new knowledge and new applications _using_ Darwinian methods.*

None of the problems that new research turns up seem to threaten the overall DE structure. The DI, of course, tries to turn every problem, every unexpected result, into a theory-killer. And they can convince the unwashed public of this because: (a) the public wants in the worst way to have their belief confirmed, and (b) the public, because of poor education and poor communication by the media, dosen't know jack squat about what these results actually signify. Take the "fossil gap" argument, for example. The DI used to trumpet the gap between aquatic mammals and any possible precursors. Did this argument go away ehen a wehole line of fossils connected whales to hiipopotamuses? Of course not; now there are _many_ gaps between whales and hippos---there'a a gap between every fossil and the next. And none of the fossils is "close enough" to any of the others to conclusively show desxcent. As an aside here, last month's issue of Scientific American has an article o the evolution of th cat (felidae) family. Guess what: lions differ a lot from tigers, but heir skulls are so similar that not even an expert can tell the difference.

So, for one thing, the analogy to classical mechanics into quantum mechanics is incorrect. But, even, if there were evidence that might lead researchers to question the overall DE mechanism, look at 2 aspects of the CM/QM shift:

(a) No evidence against CM led any scientist---or even any theologian---to believe that we needed to overhaul the definition of science itself to allow a supernatural theory to replace CM. Classical mechanics is just as "godless" as Darwin's theory. In fact, Laplace even remarked upon this aspect explicitly. When asked by Napoleon why his whole book on the system of worlds did not even mention their Creator, Laplace replied, "Sire, I hasve no need of that hypothesis." Apparently no 19thC Discovery Institute felt strongly enough to challenge him. I think ID feels that explaining life is a last-ditch effort in their "god of the gaps" effort. Life is the "last gap". If life is wholly natural and orgasnic, then God might as well close up shop, kick back, and fade away.
(b) CM was not in fact replaced until there was _positive_ evidence for another theory and a competing natrural mechanism had been developed that explained the existing evidence _better_ than CM.** This is not the case with respect to the overall DE theory. The problems uncovered by research, although they grow more numerous, also grow smaller in terms of overall danger to the theory. Your faith in ID, and the ever-loder drumbeats of the DI, may lead you to challenge that assessment. I read enough in the journals, including original research reports in "Science" every week, to be qualified to make it. You may disbelieve that too, if you wish. But 484,000 researchers in the biological sciences worldwide would not. My popsition is that you should question your own confirmation bias before you question the thousands of scientific results that pour forth every year. and you should ask whiy you don't spaend as many hours questioning string theory as you do questionind evolution.

One last subject, relating to your question about Wittgenstein. You maintain that it is possible to infer _any_ design by extension from _human_ design. Wittgenstein, would roll over in his grave at that, but let me give you an example. If you have not already read Michael Chrichton's sci-fi novel, :The ASndriomeda Strain,: you should read it now. (I'll wait....) OK. The space invaders appeared to be like nothing humans had ever seen before. We could only compare them to clouds of bacteria. They arrived in a flash of light, but no one ever saw any "spaceship" or anything else that even slightly resembled a human conveyance of any kind. What did they want? Where did they come from? All attempts at communication failed utterly. Were thay intelligent? Their actions seemed sometimes coherent, as though they communicated with each other, but sometimes also seemd totally random and unfathomable. At the end ofthe story, the strangers had successfuuly taken up residence on earth. They had resisted all afforts at destroying them, but neither did they ever seem to be intent upon destroying us, or anything else that we could see. Things went on. No one ever determined anything about the Andromeda strain. Their intelligence, if any, was more foreign than anyone could imagine. And perhaps they never considered us intelligent, or understood that Mt Rushmore had been "designed" by us. I think this work of fiction is a good lesson in knocking down our silly arrogance that any other intelligence _must_ be like us. Or, as Sir Arthur Eddington used to put it, "The universe is not only stranger than we image; it is stranger than we _can_ imagine."

Well, so much for short response in the interest of time. I've sort of rambled on, trying to explain why I think that ID is not even wrong (not science), is unnecessary (DE is doing OK), and is dihonest in its attempts to subvert science.

============
*-- One interesting new application of DE theory concerns recent studies of cancer as an evolutionary phenomenon. One method of this would be to treat cancers, not by smashing the patient's body with toxic chemicals, but to alter the selection pressures on the rapidly mutating tumor cells. And one result might be to give up the goal of "curing" the cancer, but instead to manage it as a chronic disease that never totally goes away, but never kills the patient either. Tell me what new insights ID has had---or will---have in the treatment of a specioific disease. Another application concerns avoiding destruction of worldwide fisheries. Current methods merely involve sacving existing stocks, or raising wild fish in hatcheries. DE instead looks at the selection aspects. For example, salmon in the wild are selcted for laying smaller numbers of large eggs. In hatcheries, they switch to prodcing large numbers of smaller eggs, because of the lack of predators. When these fish are realesed to the wild, predators eat the eggs, and the stocks do not survive. i suppose ID would approach this problem by praying the the designer.

**-- From the above, this is not the case in DE. (To answer a specific question from your comment, "morpogeneitc fields" might be invoked to replace an apparently "random" variation of DE; they could---if they existed---apply a successful variation from some other organism, perhpas located on an entirely different world, to produce an otherwise highly improbable change here.)

The new mechanism of QM include the duality of waves and particles, lmbda=h/p, and the replacemnet of absolutes by probabilities in the classical Hamiltonian operator, H|Psi>=ihd/dt|Psi>. Not until then was the CM model discarde. (Einstein didn't discard it even then, asserting until his death that "God does not play dice with the universe.") In the same way, astronomers did not give up their search for the planet Vulcan until Einstein's relativity relaced CM. (The irony here is that Einstein did not develop his special theory because of problems with observed data. Rather, his impetus was a conflict between 2 scientific models: Newtonian relativity and Maxwell's electromagnetic model.) The history of science is a fascinating subject.

Bio Prpf said:
>Ah, so you are just another theist with an agenda. I can turn this around on you, friend. Also, you claim I have too much time....you are doing the same thing.

Well, we all have agendas, don’t we Bio Prof? Except for the NCSE of course, no agenda there.

>Our free-will or god's? ...
>By your logic, god is not all-knowing...
>SO if Jesus is not here physically, no healing can be achieved..
>So God, as an omniscient being didn't see Satan's betrayal coming... God will know every event in the universe at any point in time if he is truly omniscient, meaning that we only perceive free-will on our end. If we truly had free-will, god could only speak of probabilities in what we will do and he would not be all knowing, not all powerful to change our minds. He is thus not omniscient or omnipotent if we have free-will.

Tough questions. Yes, it is true, there are many things we cannot explain. God is indeed beyond our comprehension.

>You brought up religion by positing a supernatural intelligent designer. You and I both know that everyone pushing ID is doing so to promulgate christianity.

Somebody needs to keep those neo-Darwinists honest, and to stand up against the promulgation of the non-fact of evolution. But Christians are not the only ones who believe in ID. A Muslim from Turkey recently published a book on creationism, apparently he sent some copies of it to scientists all over the world.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/18/healthscience/17book.php

"Tough questions. Yes, it is true, there are many things we cannot explain. God is indeed beyond our comprehension."

What you mean to say is that I am right and there is no rational response to the absurdity of your beliefs and logic.

"But Christians are not the only ones who believe in ID. A Muslim from Turkey recently published a book on creationism, apparently he sent some copies of it to scientists all over the world."

First, you admit ID is creationism, thanks.
Second, what is the difference between a Muslim backing intelligent design and a Christian? I believe both Muslims and Christians worship the god of Abraham....though violently disagree on characteristics of their agressively male deity and his prophets. What if the IDer turns out to be multiple designers? What if the designer hates Christianity and its followers? You people push ID because you think it justifies your Christian perspective, as the Muslim believes about his faith, however, the possibility never enters your mind that this deity may not be the god of Abraham. You will likely come back and say something like "We can't know anything about the designer from the design." Think of that next time you notice all the horror in the world and all the recently designed pathogens like ebola, and HIV.

Pau hana said:
>ID's problem with science is that it implies a supernatural designer...
>Now, if we could build a scientific mechanism or model of this intelligence that would allow us to study and control any natural aspects of it, scientists wpould not be opposed to ID as such.

I doubt it. Anything suggesting a supernatural cause would be ruled out, because as you said, “Supernatural causation is ruled out by fiat”.

>But all ID proponents limit themselves merely to "detecting" design; they all resist, avoid, and abhor any investigation into the designer or its designs.

I do not know if it is possible to come up with a scientific mechanism for ID. ID may indeed be limited to “detecting” design. What is wrong with that?

>Evidence from these 4 phases will, I think, complete the areas in which DE will be able to show that ID is wrong and uneccssary.

Wow, that is very presumptuous. They have a very long way to go.

>there'a a gap between every fossil and the next. And none of the fossils is "close enough" to any of the others to conclusively show desxcent.

Then perhaps common descent shouldn’t be proclaimed as “fact”.

>The problems uncovered by research, although they grow more numerous, also grow smaller in terms of overall danger to the theory. Your faith in ID, and the ever-loder drumbeats of the DI, may lead you to challenge that assessment. I read enough in the journals, including original research reports in "Science" every week, to be qualified to make it. You may disbelieve that too, if you wish. But 484,000 researchers in the biological sciences worldwide would not.
>My popsition is that you should question your own confirmation bias before you question the thousands of scientific results that pour forth every year. and you should ask whiy you don't spaend as many hours questioning string theory as you do questionind evolution.

My bias has been questioned steadily for about 20 years now, and early on it was questioned during a time when I was having major problems with religion. My background is in biochemistry, and I am surrounded, inundated with articles relating to evolution (but not string theory). so I am in a good position for assessing certain aspects of evolution. Through the years my study of biochemistry has only strengthened my belief in a creator. There are some aspects of evolution that I do not dispute, in other instances I may have an alternate interpretation. But I have not seen any study or model that comes even close to convincing me that the chemical evolution of a cell could ever occur, so many conditions are required. Anybody who teaches that the origin of life is the result of natural processes as a fact is either dishonest or ignorant and in either case irresponsible. This is far from proven. As for the 484000 researchers, well, we all have our opinions, and the majority is not always right.

>One last subject, relating to your question about Wittgenstein. You maintain that it is possible to infer _any_ design by extension from _human_ design. Wittgenstein, would roll over in his grave at that, but let me give you an example... I think this work of fiction is a good lesson in knocking down our silly arrogance that any other intelligence _must_ be like us.

I never said that any other intelligence must be like us. I am simply saying that based on my experience with human design, I also see elements of design when I study the cell, or life in general.

>Well, so much for short response in the interest of time.

Well, thank you for your time, it has been a stimulating discussion!

>I've sort of rambled on, trying to explain why I think that ID is not even wrong (not science), is unnecessary (DE is doing OK), and is dihonest in its attempts to subvert science.

It sounds to me like you are trapped in the box of materialism.

How is ID trying to subvert science?

============
>*-- ...When these fish are realesed to the wild, predators eat the eggs, and the stocks do not survive. i suppose ID would approach this problem by praying the the designer.

That would be a good start.

Bio Prof said:
>>"Tough questions. Yes, it is true, there are many things we cannot explain. God is indeed beyond our comprehension."
>What you mean to say is that I am right and there is no rational response to the absurdity of your beliefs and logic.

Of course, you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It is true, there are many things for which I have no answers. But some of those questions you pose are not that important to me, so they do not pose as stumbling blocks to my faith.

As for my logic and beliefs, well, there are questions for which science has many possible explanations but no definitive answer (origin of life, the universe, ultimate cause). How is my belief system any more absurd? Oh yes, because it involves a supernatural cause.

>>"But Christians are not the only ones who believe in ID. A Muslim from Turkey recently published a book on creationism, apparently he sent some copies of it to scientists all over the world."
>First, you admit ID is creationism, thanks.

Close, but not exactly. The way I see it, I think there are multiple forms of creationism, and each form is a more specific case. ID is the more general case. So I would say that the different forms of creationism are subsets of ID.

>Second, what is the difference between a Muslim backing intelligent design and a Christian?

Probably not much, except perhaps different beliefs about creation.

>What if the IDer turns out to be multiple designers? What if the designer hates Christianity and its followers?

That is definitely possible Bio Prof, which is why I don’t think ID equals creationism. The multiple designers hypothesis would be another allowed possibility, another subset of ID.

>You people push ID because you think it justifies your Christian perspective, as the Muslim believes about his faith, however, the possibility never enters your mind that this deity may not be the god of Abraham.

I cannot speak for the ID community at large. As for me, I do not have a specific religious agenda for pushing ID, because I believe in the freedom of religion. My beef is with those scientists who promote the unproven claims of evolution as fact.

What about you, Bio Prof? Why do you push against ID so much?

>You will likely come back and say something like "We can't know anything about the designer from the design."

From a scientific standpoint this may be true. But certainly interpretation of the design is available. I expressed my interpretation earlier in this thread. You have also expressed your interpretation, and reject design based on it.

>Think of that next time you notice all the horror in the world and all the recently designed pathogens like ebola, and HIV.

Not to mention that impending bird flu. Yes, I notice the horror of this world every day that I watch or read the news. Helps me to look forward to the day of Christ’s return when He’ll make everything right.

"As for my logic and beliefs, well, there are questions for which science has many possible explanations but no definitive answer (origin of life, the universe, ultimate cause). How is my belief system any more absurd? Oh yes, because it involves a supernatural cause."

Scientists will readily admit ignorance of how life originated, how the Big Bang started, etc. It is not absurd to think that cells formed through basic chemistry, especially when organic molecules are readily formed throughout the cosmos. For instance trailing comets which impact moons and planets, and we now know that Saturn's moon titan has an atmosphere containing organic molecules; precursors to amino acids and nucleotides. Impact of meteors and comets are thought to liquify enough water to allow chemical evolution; though due to the temperatures, this would take much longer than on earth. Also, when we realize that astrophysicists estimate 10^21 stars exist in our universe, it seems very probable that more suns like our ordinary red dwarf on an outer arm of an ordinary spiral galaxy will hold planets capable of evolving life. What makes your beliefs silly is the fact that they are counter to logic as I have demonstrated and experience. You believe Mary gave birth through parthenogenesis, yet her genes were likely not involved. The hand of god reached into her womb (or something) and planted a fertilized egg. You believe that a man dead three days was given life at the behest of Jesus, and that this man could defy gravity and surface tension so as to walk across water (that was not frozen). You believe that Jesus and his surrogate mother ascended wholy into the sky. You believe that God HAD to sacrifice brutily his son, which is also himself, so that we could be saved.....but why all the blood? Why couldn't God just forgive us? Is it moral to torture and kill one human for another human's crimes? Absolutely not. What if you were chosen to be torutured and then electrocuted for a murderer's crimes? Then people of future generations wore an electric chair in rememberence for your sacrifice. Someone standing outside of this would find it immoral and absurd.

"Close, but not exactly. The way I see it, I think there are multiple forms of creationism, and each form is a more specific case. ID is the more general case. So I would say that the different forms of creationism are subsets of ID."

Multiple forms of a deity creating life? So while some forms of creation are specific, ID is a more general form of creation? Either life was created or it was not, specifically or generally.

"Probably not much, except perhaps different beliefs about creation."

Unjustified, evidence lacking, illogical beliefs about creation given what we now know about the universe.

"That is definitely possible Bio Prof, which is why I don’t think ID equals creationism. The multiple designers hypothesis would be another allowed possibility, another subset of ID."

But this only begs the question 'how do you know your faith as opposed to another faith is correct?' Afterall, you would be a polytheist if you had been born in a polytheistic family in India rather than born of Christian parents....but this neglects the temporal dimension....if you had been born many centuries ago you would have worshiped Zeus, among many other dead gods. Here is a problem with your ID hypothesis.....if the ID is irreducibly complex, it would require a designer, and so on ad infinitum. There is a similar infinite regress with God.

"As for me, I do not have a specific religious agenda for pushing ID, because I believe in the freedom of religion. My beef is with those scientists who promote the unproven claims of evolution as fact."

What does a belief in "freedom of religion" have to do with your personal agenda of believing that God created life? That doesn't even make sense. As for "unproven claims of evolution", no claims in science are "proven". Science is not like a mathematical proof. We can speak of the fact of evolution and the theory and be correct....just like the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity. To claim evolution is not a fact is to not have examined and understood the evidence.

"What about you, Bio Prof? Why do you push against ID so much?"

Because it is not science and threatens to damage our education system and confuse students.

"From a scientific standpoint this may be true. But certainly interpretation of the design is available. I expressed my interpretation earlier in this thread. You have also expressed your interpretation, and reject design based on it."

If an engineer built a bridge that collapsed after two weeks what would you conclude about this designer???? There is quite alot of information about the designer from the design.

"Not to mention that impending bird flu. Yes, I notice the horror of this world every day that I watch or read the news. Helps me to look forward to the day of Christ’s return when He’ll make everything right."

Being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why didn't Jesus simply make things good the first time? You Christians love to blame humans, but we are not the ones that limited resources or made nature so brutal. If God really loves us why not make things nice for us? Would you make your kids sleep outside and fend for themselves: "find your own food". They call for help and you do nothing. This is your god. People pray while being raped, and what does he do? Nothing. Any reasonable person would abandon this being as he has abandoned us (assuming he exists). If I recall, in Revelations, Jesus told them he would be coming in their lifetime. People have been waiting for 2000 years, like other religions wait for their saviors. I wouldn't quit your job in preparation for the rapture.

Rebely said: "It sounds to me like you are trapped in the box of materialism."

I finally understood your point on the quotation. Now you understand mine on science. You are exactly right, and this is at bottom a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Douglas Hofstadter, in his new book "I am a Strange Loop" (a theory of consciousness) said that philosphers delude themselves when they think they can prove their points, that the best they can do is to persuade people who were already thinking along similar lines.

So I'll have to convince you that imprisoning science in the oubliette of methodological materialism (MM) is a good idea, not a bad idea. (I think you're wrong on the evidence for evolution, too; but that's another subject.)

My reasons for adhering to MM concern the benfits it has already given us, and the liklihood that embracing supernatural causation would deter future progress.

Until the 16thC, Greek/medieval teleological physical science and technology progressed hardly at all, except for importations of Islamic science---which was implicitly MM.* Bacon's Novum Organum brought the first glimmer of MM, and after Newton's time it was firmly established. Scientists invoked God only at the limits of their understanding, and, over a century's span, began not to depair of solving remaining problems through natural law only. But did MM actually fuel this explosion of science and technology? Yes. Scientists gave up trying to figure out "What would God do in this case?" and started to trust to regularities of nature instead.**

Has the situation changed now? Does MM now impede the understandiong and control of nature? Even the DI only claims it does in one area---evolution. Quantum mechanics? No arguments with design of quantum entanglement or duality. Chemistry? No cry for intellectual design of the periodic table. Dark energy? Lots of woo-hoo theories going on, but no claims of ID. Just one area might benefit, and the motivation has to do with religion, not science. (Phillip Johnson: "It's not about science. It's about philosophy, and religion.") Technically, this is a genetic fallacy; but when Prof. Dr. Michael Behe his own self says under oath that believing in ID is "implausible" unless you believe in God, then I think a warrant exists.

But, if we give up MM anyway, what benefits might accrue? All ID proponents agree that their journey ends with identifying the fact of design. Science moves forward by proposing evidence-based mechanisms and models that allow us to infer research directions and projects from them. What can we infer from the mere detection of design, without a mechanism or a model of any kind?*** What can we infer from the mere presence vel non of arbitrary supernatural causation in a particular situation Take your own work in biochemistry. If you were "free" to infer supernatural causation for a given synthesis, how would that aid you in predicting other synthesis methods, or other possible reactions or products? What would you learn? How could you extrapolate anything from a result that you infer is designed by an unknowable intelligence?

A couple thousand years ago, it was written, "By their fruits shall you know them." What has been the total harvest of ID research so far? How about zero? We do have several attempts (Behe, Dembski) to formulate design detectors, but I argue above that mere detection is fallow. Templton's largesse produced not even a proposal for a research project. The vaunted Biologic Institute says even the nature of their research is "secret"; their website still says, "Uh, come back later" after two years. The soi-disant "Laboratory for Evolutionary Statistics"? Puh-leeze. Even their most ambitious goal is to disprove Darwin---no efforts to verify actual designs, no attempts at understanding how a design process might work, or when, or why. Nada, nichts, rien, nichevo, walang, a'ole, niente. Did I mention "nothing"? It is truly risible that the DI claims MM is the science stopper.

This is an outline of an answer to your question, "How is ID trying to subvert science?" The regularity and predictability that is imposed upon science by MM is a roadway, not a prison. ID's supernatural causation, on the other hand, is a trackless desert leading nowhere.

===========
*--I've repeated the story of Islamic science several times; see Artmstrong, "A History of God" (Ballantine, 1993). Briefly, the Arab faylasufi (scientists) pursued entirely secular work until the 11thC, when the imams decided that this conflicted with religious ideas. Baghdad then ceased as the world's scientific capital. Renaissant Europe thwen took over, and Islamic science and technology never recovered.

Nazi Germany and Lysenkoism are instances of what happens when ideological beliefs interfere with science.

**--An example of telology: Copericus thought there could be no more than six planets, becuase God would obviously want a regular Platonic solid between each pair, and there are only 5 Platonic solids. Sounds fishy to me....

Another example: Newton found instabilities in his gravitaional theory, and thought that God must keep the planets in their orbits. A century later, Laplace explained them with a theory of perturbations. (When Napoleon asked him why his book never mentioned the Creator of the universe he described, Laplace replied, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.") So Laplace, by eschewing supernatural influence and adhering to natural explanations, solved the problem. Newton had the tools to do it, but his "freedom" to invoke God immobilized him.

See Westfall, "The Construction of Modern Science" (Wiley, 1971).

***--Dembski is quite emphatic that ID is not a mechanistic theory, and that any inquiry into the attributes of the designer is "theological." Behe agrees, although less stridently.

I may have appeared to contradict myself above by saying that a design theory enables you to infer nothing---and yet I also said that Copernick used an argument from design to infer that there are only six planets.

But someone else could have used the same theory to infer six planets because six is the fitrst perfect number, and God is perfect. Or that the earth was created in six days, so the universe (as it was then known) reflects this quantity. A design theory could also predict that a seventh planet would be found, because the whole of creation required seven days. When this predition was later borne out, would the design theorists jump for joy that they had made a successful predition? (Well, at least until the next planet was discovered.)

Being able to infer everything is the same as being able to infer nothing. Cosmologists have a saying that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

"Has the situation changed now? Does MM now impede the understandiong and control of nature? Even the DI only claims it does in one area---evolution. Quantum mechanics? No arguments with design of quantum entanglement or duality. Chemistry? No cry for intellectual design of the periodic table. Dark energy? Lots of woo-hoo theories going on, but no claims of ID. Just one area might benefit, and the motivation has to do with religion, not science. (Phillip Johnson: "It's not about science. It's about philosophy, and religion.") Technically, this is a genetic fallacy; but when Prof. Dr. Michael Behe his own self says under oath that believing in ID is "implausible" unless you believe in God, then I think a warrant exists."

Well put.

Bio Prof said:
>Scientists will readily admit ignorance of how life originated, how the Big Bang started, etc.
>It is not absurd to think that cells formed through basic chemistry, especially when organic molecules are readily formed throughout the cosmos.

It is once you start studying it. Organic molecules? So what? Organic molecules do not equate with life.

>For instance trailing comets which impact moons and planets, and we now know that Saturn's moon titan has an atmosphere containing organic molecules; precursors to amino acids and nucleotides.

Certainly having organic molecules is a necessary requirement. But even having a collection of amino acids and nucleotides is no big deal. Much, much more is required than just a pool of amino acids and nucleotides, that barely scratches the surface.

>Impact of meteors and comets are thought to liquify enough water to allow chemical evolution; though due to the temperatures, this would take much longer than on earth.

Much, much longer. More like never.

>Also, when we realize that astrophysicists estimate 10^21 stars exist in our universe, it seems very probable that more suns like our ordinary red dwarf on an outer arm of an ordinary spiral galaxy will hold planets capable of evolving life.

I do not doubt that. I’m sure the Creator has created life all over the universe.

>You believe Mary gave birth through parthenogenesis, yet her genes were likely not involved. The hand of god reached into her womb (or something) and planted a fertilized egg. You believe that a man dead three days was given life at the behest of Jesus, and that this man could defy gravity and surface tension so as to walk across water (that was not frozen). You believe that Jesus and his surrogate mother ascended wholy into the sky.

Since I believe in God, then of course it is logical to believe that God can perform these miracles. You seem to think that it is necessary to understand God before we can accept Him. I do not.

>You believe that God HAD to sacrifice brutily his son, which is also himself, so that we could be saved.....but why all the blood? Why couldn't God just forgive us?

If God could just “forgive us”, there would never be an end to sin (no consequences), and thus there would never be an end to pain, suffering and death.

“Sin is the transgression of the (God’s) Law” 1 John 3:4
“The wages of sin is death...” Romans 6:23
Sin and death came through one man (Adam), but salvation came through one man (Jesus Christ) (see Romans 5:12-20).

>Is it moral to torture and kill one human for another human's crimes?
Absolutely not. What if you were chosen to be torutured and then electrocuted for a murderer's crimes?

Christ came and died on his own volition (John 10:17, 18; Phillipians 2:5-11), so that we did not have to die. God could have wiped the human race from existence, but He loved us so much that He paid the price Himself. That is the significance of The Gift. No man can pay for another’s sins, except Christ, who is sinless.

>Multiple forms of a deity creating life? So while some forms of creation are specific, ID is a more general form of creation? Either life was created or it was not, specifically or generally.

In a previous post, Pau Hana suggested that there may be reasons to believe there are multiple designers. But hey, you bring up a good point. As far as promoting ID I was just keeping an open mind, but now that you mention it, specific creation does make more sense, at least to me.

>>"Probably not much, except perhaps different beliefs about creation."
>Unjustified, evidence lacking, illogical beliefs about creation given what we now know about the universe.

There are many different views about creation. There is plenty of evidence to support it. Of course, if you are trapped in the box of materialism, you will never see it.

>>"That is definitely possible Bio Prof, which is why I don’t think ID equals creationism. The multiple designers hypothesis would be another allowed possibility, another subset of ID."
>But this only begs the question 'how do you know your faith as opposed to another faith is correct?'

Good question! That becomes an individual quest, a personal decision. I can only speak for my own experience.

> Here is a problem with your ID hypothesis.....if the ID is irreducibly complex, it would require a designer, and so on ad infinitum. There is a similar infinite regress with God.

And there is a similar regress with the origin of the universe. Science has to conclude that the universe always existed, in one form or another. I believe that God always existed.

>What does a belief in "freedom of religion" have to do with your personal agenda of believing that God created life? That doesn't even make sense.

I said this in response to you mentioning Christianity specifically. You misread my personal agenda, it isn’t to push my religion or belief onto others, but to keep the claims of evolution in check.

>As for "unproven claims of evolution", no claims in science are "proven". Science is not like a mathematical proof. We can speak of the fact of evolution and the theory and be correct.

You can to an extent. But you said yourself that science admits ignorance on how life originated. So why should I believe that life originated due to natural causes, and why should that be taught as fact?

>...just like the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity. To claim evolution is not a fact is to not have examined and understood the evidence.

To claim evolution in its entirety as fact is presumptuous and dishonest. We cannot know how life originated.

>>"What about you, Bio Prof? Why do you push against ID so much?"
>Because it is not science and threatens to damage our education system and confuse students.

How so? It wouldn’t confuse students, but it may actually improve their critical skills. Besides, it isn’t science to indoctrinate students into believing the claims of evolution. The education system needs an honest teaching of evolution.

>There is quite alot of information about the designer from the design.

I agree, but that information is subject to interpretation.

>Being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why didn't Jesus simply make things good the first time?

He did!

>You Christians love to blame humans, but we are not the ones that limited resources or made nature so brutal.

Humans are selfish and greedy, even when resources are not limiting.

>If God really loves us why not make things nice for us?

He did. (see Genesis 1:31). When sin entered the world, so did the curse of sin. Besides that, we have an enemy, the Devil, which I described in an earlier post. The Devil likes to make things difficult for us.

>Would you make your kids sleep outside and fend for themselves: "find your own food". They call for help and you do nothing. This is your god. People pray while being raped, and what does he do? Nothing. Any reasonable person would abandon this being as he has abandoned us (assuming he exists).

Perhaps this is your experience, but this is not mine. It is true, God let’s bad things happen to good people. Read Job 1 and 2 for some insight. Jesus said that we would have trouble in this world (John 16:33).

>If I recall, in Revelations, Jesus told them he would be coming in their lifetime.

That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)

>People have been waiting for 2000 years, like other religions wait for their saviors. I wouldn't quit your job in preparation for the rapture.

I wouldn’t either.

Hey, feel free to respond to this post, but I cannot promise to respond in timely manner as I have been really busy lately. I have deadlines ahead of me and a meeting to attend, so I will be mostly unavailable for the next few weeks. But, as Arnold always says, “I’ll be back!”

"It is once you start studying it. Organic molecules? So what? Organic molecules do not equate with life."

Life is composed of organic molecules. Life as we know it is carbon based..shouldn't we therefore study carbon based systems?

"Certainly having organic molecules is a necessary requirement. But even having a collection of amino acids and nucleotides is no big deal. Much, much more is required than just a pool of amino acids and nucleotides, that barely scratches the surface."

Correct!!!! Now, this is where science comes in!!! You would rather revell in ignorance, though, it would seem.

"Much, much longer. More like never."

Possibly, however, we observe the processes occuring on a planetary system in our own solar system. There are a few billion billion stars in the universe; many of which have planets.....

"I said this in response to you mentioning Christianity specifically. You misread my personal agenda, it isn’t to push my religion or belief onto others, but to keep the claims of evolution in check."

Yeah, I'm sure that your Christian perspective has nothing to do with your rejection of evolution and your acceptance of ID creationism. Right. Also, evolution has "checked" out each time it has been tested, tens of thousands of times.

"You can to an extent. But you said yourself that science admits ignorance on how life originated. So why should I believe that life originated due to natural causes, and why should that be taught as fact?"

Well, let us think about this. Let's say you teach kids that Jesus made the first life. The kids scream "Yeah, Jesus"! Then, a few years later, we find out how life originated. Now, it looks unlikely that Jesus was necessary, "Jesus" was a gap-filler until a natural explanation came about. This happened to Newton. Also, there is the obvious....YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR SUPERNATURAL INVOLVEMENT AT ANY POINT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!!

"To claim evolution in its entirety as fact is presumptuous and dishonest. We cannot know how life originated."

Origin of life and evolution are different theoretical constructs. Evolution starts with the first populations....after the origin. As much as you don't like it, evolution is a fact of nature that is well established. It's funny how faith can shed doubt on established fact. The Christian Scientists doubt the germ theory of disease. You doubt evolution. Not recognizing facts doesn't make them any less credible.

"How so? It wouldn’t confuse students, but it may actually improve their critical skills. Besides, it isn’t science to indoctrinate students into believing the claims of evolution. The education system needs an honest teaching of evolution."

I am all for teaching kids ID...in the context of what is not science. This would be a good excersize in learning the scientific method and how ID goes off the map. We are being "honest" by teaching students about how life evolves. It is you who are being dishonest and bringing your faith into the science classroom. ID has no supporting evidence, and neither does YOUR faith.

"I agree, but that information is subject to interpretation."

Fair enough. My bridge example, would you conclude that the engineer was either stupid or evil? What can we conclude about the designer whose creations continually go extinct?

"He did!"

Oh, so that explains why God set up that nice little trick...."Don't eat from the tree of knowledge". What kind of sick game is that?

"Humans are selfish and greedy, even when resources are not limiting."

We are god's design according to you.

"He did. (see Genesis 1:31). When sin entered the world, so did the curse of sin. Besides that, we have an enemy, the Devil, which I described in an earlier post. The Devil likes to make things difficult for us."

Yet God invented sin. If he is the programmer, he built us to choose wrong. He supposedly put Adam and Eve (a ridiculous story) in the garden and they chose sin right away! It certainly didn't take much of "Satan's" influence. This must mean that god wired us to have chosen to sin. Also, if god is omniscient he would have known already when he created the tree of knowledge that Adam and Eve would have eaten from it and he would have to curse them. If he didn't know this, he is not all knowing. If God wanted things to be good for us, he would not let "the devil" to operate. Unless the devil is as powerful or moreso than god. Whatever the interpretation, it doesn't bode well for god.

"It is true, God let’s bad things happen to good people."

Or maybe, people's lives are simply full of events, good and bad.

"Jesus said that we would have trouble in this world (John 16:33)."

You mean the authors simply made an observation about the world they inhabit.

"That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)"

Is it possible for Jesus not to know this?

Pau hana wrote:
>> Rebely said: "It sounds to me like you are trapped in the box of materialism."
> I finally understood your point on the quotation. Now you understand mine on science. You are exactly right, and this is at bottom a philosophical position, not a scientific one...
> So I'll have to convince you that imprisoning science in the oubliette of methodological materialism (MM) is a good idea, not a bad idea...

Thanks, Pau, for the arguments for MM. Perhaps I gave you the wrong impression about my stance on MM. I do not disagree with most of your points. While I realize that you were probably poking fun at IDers earlier (ex. IDers would pray for solutions to the fish problem described earlier, etc.), I do not actually invoke divine explanations for any problem I encounter in my research, I always look for material causes and explanations. But there are things that are beyond our ability to explain. Sure, there are naturalistic explanations for some of these things, and I don’t have a problem with the teaching of these. My problem is when these unproven claims are taught as fact. It isn’t honest.

As far as your historical examples for invoking divine explanations go, well, I do not know what was going through the Copernicus’ mind when he made the assumption that there should only be six planets. This sounds like his assumption was based on his limited understanding of the universe, and less related to ID. Obviously if you start with incorrect assumptions, you will end up with incorrect conclusions.

> ***--Dembski is quite emphatic that ID is not a mechanistic theory, and that any inquiry into the attributes of the designer is "theological." Behe agrees, although less stridently.

They may be right, it might not be possible for ID to be a mechanistic theory, I'll have to think about it some more. But I do not think it is necessary for it to be. I don't see anything wrong with detection of design in principle. After all, design may be the truth!

BTW, Pau, did you get my email requesting the Lewontin article? I did not receive a copy from you.

Bio Prof said:
>Life is composed of organic molecules. Life as we know it is carbon based..shouldn't we therefore study carbon based systems?

Of course we should. Much of what I study involves carbon based systems. You think I am suggesting that we shouldn’t??

>>"Certainly having organic molecules is a necessary requirement. But even having a collection of amino acids and nucleotides is no big deal. Much, much more is required than just a pool of amino acids and nucleotides, that barely scratches the surface."
>Correct!!!! Now, this is where science comes in!!! You would rather revell in ignorance, though, it would seem.

Huh? Oh, I see. All who believe in God choose to revel in ignorance. Is that your way of thinking, Bio Prof?

>Yeah, I'm sure that your Christian perspective has nothing to do with your rejection of evolution and your acceptance of ID creationism. Right.

I have a couple of questions for you: Were you raised an atheist, or did you have a religious background of any kind? Do you think that all modern scientists were raised as athiests?

>>"You can to an extent. But you said yourself that science admits ignorance on how life originated. So why should I believe that life originated due to natural causes, and why should that be taught as fact?"
>Well, let us think about this. Let's say you teach kids that Jesus made the first life. The kids scream "Yeah, Jesus"! Then, a few years later, we find out how life originated.

Wow, so confident you are! Are we close to inventing a time machine or something?

>Now, it looks unlikely that Jesus was necessary, "Jesus" was a gap-filler until a natural explanation came about. This happened to Newton. Also, there is the obvious....YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR SUPERNATURAL INVOLVEMENT AT ANY POINT IN THE UNIVERSE!!!!

Sure we do...origin of life, intelligence.

>>"To claim evolution in its entirety as fact is presumptuous and dishonest. We cannot know how life originated."
>Origin of life and evolution are different theoretical constructs.

Perhaps, but they are often lumped together. When my biology professors taught it, they meant the whole “kit and kaboodle”, origin of life included. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life involves chemical evolution, does it not?

>Evolution starts with the first populations....after the origin. As much as you don't like it, evolution is a fact of nature that is well established. It's funny how faith can shed doubt on established fact. The Christian Scientists doubt the germ theory of disease. You doubt evolution. Not recognizing facts doesn't make them any less credible.

Just to be clear, what are these facts that you speak of? I’m not opposed to the teaching of “facts”, just the teaching of “claims” as fact.

>>"How so? It wouldn’t confuse students, but it may actually improve their critical skills. Besides, it isn’t science to indoctrinate students into believing the claims of evolution. The education system needs an honest teaching of evolution."
>I am all for teaching kids ID...in the context of what is not science.

You mean science as defined by “methodological materialism”. Good for you. That’s a start.

>This would be a good excersize in learning the scientific method and how ID goes off the map. We are being "honest" by teaching students about how life evolves.

Hopefully, you don’t mean like my “honest” genetics professor, who spent weeks preaching evolution and atheism. Hardly objective and honest teaching of evolution. Sorry, I’ll pass on that form of honesty.

> It is you who are being dishonest and bringing your faith into the science classroom.

I do not support the teaching of religion in public funded schools, it violates the first amendment. I support the teaching of ID only in a form that excludes religion.

>ID has no supporting evidence, and neither does YOUR faith.

There is abundant evidence for ID, more than enough for my faith.

>>"I agree, but that information is subject to interpretation."
>Fair enough. My bridge example, would you conclude that the engineer was either stupid or evil? What can we conclude about the designer whose creations continually go extinct?

Well, in light of recent events I wasn’t going to mention bridges. But since you brought it up again, I’d suggest that you reread my previous post from “03:48AM Wednesday on July 25, 2007”. Perhaps the designer has an enemy. At least the designer gave it’s creations the ability to adapt, to heal themselves, and (for some), to think (problem solve). Not such a bad design, I think.

>>"He did!"
>Oh, so that explains why God set up that nice little trick...."Don't eat from the tree of knowledge". What kind of sick game is that?
>>"Humans are selfish and greedy, even when resources are not limiting."
>We are god's design according to you.
>...Yet God invented sin. If he is the programmer, he built us to choose wrong.

Did you actually read my earlier post from 03:48AM Wednesday on July 25, 2007? Didn’t think so. But hey, if this is what you want to believe, feel free.

>...Whatever the interpretation, it doesn't bode well for god.

It only doesn’t abode well for God in your interpretation. I have no problem with my interpretation.

>>"It is true, God let’s bad things happen to good people."
>Or maybe, people's lives are simply full of events, good and bad.

No argument there.

>>"Jesus said that we would have trouble in this world (John 16:33)."
>You mean the authors simply made an observation about the world they inhabit.

Actually, the intent of the verse is to point out that although they will have trouble in this world, Christ encouraged them to take heart, because He overcame the world.

>>"That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)"
>Is it possible for Jesus not to know this?

Certainly as a human on earth it was possible for him not to know, but God the Father knows. But now? Jesus probably knows, but I cannot know for certain.

"Of course we should. Much of what I study involves carbon based systems. You think I am suggesting that we shouldn’t??"

Thats what you said: "It is once you start studying it. Organic molecules? So what? Organic molecules do not equate with life."

"Huh? Oh, I see. All who believe in God choose to revel in ignorance. Is that your way of thinking, Bio Prof?"

Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. That which we don't have evidence for we are ignorant of. When you choose to fill gaps in our knowledge with god(s) you are in fact revelling in ignorance.

"I have a couple of questions for you: Were you raised an atheist, or did you have a religious background of any kind? Do you think that all modern scientists were raised as athiests?"

I was raised by parents who were devoit Catholics, I went to Catholic school K-12 and believed in God until late in college-when I started to think skeptically and examine claims. After reading the Bible in Old and New testament college courses I began to wonder how anyone could believe this story. So, no, I wasn't raised an atheist, it only took a reading of the Bible, a healthy dose of critical thinking and an abandonment of fear.

"Wow, so confident you are! Are we close to inventing a time machine or something?"

Are you close to inventing a God detector? Our portal through time is the genome, the fossil record and thousands of independent observations across numerous fields of inquiry. It is you who are overly confident that both God exists and that you have chosen the correct god to worship/fear.

"Sure we do...origin of life, intelligence."

Oh, so you are telling me that you have demonstrable evidence that life was created and that human intelligence is the product of a creator. Please cite these outstanding references so that I might see the light.

"Perhaps, but they are often lumped together. When my biology professors taught it, they meant the whole “kit and kaboodle”, origin of life included. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life involves chemical evolution, does it not?"

Chemical evolution and biological evolution are still different constructs. Biological evolution is still dependent on chemical evolution in a naturalistic explanation.

"Just to be clear, what are these facts that you speak of? I’m not opposed to the teaching of “facts”, just the teaching of “claims” as fact."

It is "fact" that life has changed drastically throughout earths history, fossils attest to this. Genomes evolve, this "fact" is found through study of molecular biology and comparative genomics. Populations evolve, this "fact" has been demonstrated in the field and lab with hundreds of species. Speciation occurs, this "fact" has been observed in the lab and field. I could go on and on. The literature is there for you to read.

"You mean science as defined by “methodological materialism”. Good for you. That’s a start."

To be science, we must be able to observe, test and falsify. We cannot do this with a supernatural deity because it could have made it look as though nature obeys physical law, but the deity may be causing everything to move and we wouldn't be able to observe it. ID can explain everything and nothing because we can't determine a mechanism or detect the designer...not to mention that one is superfluous since natural law is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

"Hopefully, you don’t mean like my “honest” genetics professor, who spent weeks preaching evolution and atheism. Hardly objective and honest teaching of evolution. Sorry, I’ll pass on that form of honesty."

I don't know why a professor would even bring up god in a science class. I certainly wouldn't, it doesn't get you anywhere. Further, evolution occurs without a deity existing or not as far as we can tell. ID however depends on a deity existing so you would have to bring a theistic view to the classroom. That is the difference.

"I do not support the teaching of religion in public funded schools, it violates the first amendment. I support the teaching of ID only in a form that excludes religion."

God is involved by definition (though poor and illogical) of IC. IC would prevent a intelligence from forming naturally, so the designer of life has to be supernatural, or a god. You are still violating the establishment clause-and intentionally so.

"There is abundant evidence for ID, more than enough for my faith."

Yeah, I know, if you walk on a beach and find a watch.....

"Well, in light of recent events I wasn’t going to mention bridges. But since you brought it up again, I’d suggest that you reread my previous post from “03:48AM Wednesday on July 25, 2007”. Perhaps the designer has an enemy. At least the designer gave it’s creations the ability to adapt, to heal themselves, and (for some), to think (problem solve). Not such a bad design, I think."

Oh, was I being insensitive? I have a question. How could anyone claim god is good when he allows things like this to happen. Arguing from an enemy gets you nowhere if you think god is omnipotent. You would have to admit god is either impotent to do anything or evil to allow what he supposedly loves to die like that. Adaptation, healing and thinking are the result of 3 billion years of evolution. You have no evidence that a god created humans with these abilities. If you do, present it.

You said: "Did you actually read my earlier post from 03:48AM Wednesday on July 25, 2007? Didn’t think so. But hey, if this is what you want to believe, feel free."

Ok, I will address this at length.

“I find it ironic yet somewhat amusing that you in your Darwinist/evolutionist mindset pass judgment on the character of the designer, who may or may not be the Judeo-Christian God.”
You mean “how dare I think for myself rather than accept unconditionally out of fear”.
“Who are you to judge whether or not God is evil?”
How did you come to the conclusion that god is good? We use our own moral understanding to pass such judgement. I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people? Please answer me.
“If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and is not concerned about good and evil. Good and evil should be irrelevant. But since morality is important to you, please continue reading.”
This is nonsense. Pretend that God doesn’t exist (not difficult to do). Would you in any way change your moral character? The Golden rule, for instance, predated the Bible by many hundred years. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives are intolerant of murder, theft, and have good reason for respecting and protecting kin over non-relative outgroups. Morality is based on happiness and decreasing suffering. This predates humanity! “Survival of the fittest”, “nature red in tooth and claw” are incomplete. Humans evolved in small groups, like many other primates live in now. Humans survived and had more offspring which survived by reciprocal altruism-doing unto others as they would have others do to them.
“Good question. I do not believe it was ever God’s will that anybody or anything should suffer or die. God gave us free-will, the freedom to make choices.”
Then God is not omniscient, or if he is, he wanted us to suffer. This is the problem of theodicy.
“God could have created preprogrammed automatons which continually do His bidding, and perhaps He has, I don’t know.”
Or perhaps He doesn’t exist and we are just products of evolution.
“But apparently God wanted a more meaningful relationship with humans.”
So that is why we have one-way conversations with Him, and say some ask him not to let their child with leukemia die, or ask him why he let their child be born with severe physical or mental problems. Right, a nice meaningful relationship.

“Jesus said (in John 4:23) that God seeks people who worship Him in spirit and in truth. Automatons cannot have this sincere kind of relationship with their creator.”
Automatons are also uncritical of claims that God loves them, yet allows all sorts of horrible things to happen to them. Actions speak louder than words.
“While giving us free-will, God also allows us to experience the consequences of our choices. In creating free-will beings, God allowed the possibility for sin to enter the world, and it did, and with it came pain and suffering and death.”
Free-will means that God cannot be omniscient. If he is omniscient he will know what we will do in the future, and thus the future will be determined. If you say “he is outside of space-time so the future is indistinguishable from the past-present, then I will point out that to be transcendental means that He would not be able to act within space-time as everyone thinks he does.
“In fact, I believe that sin is the inevitable result of God creating free-will beings. Does that mean God created sin? I do not believe so, He didn’t cause anybody to sin (not Lucifer nor Adam/Eve nor anybody else), but by granting free-will He did allow for it to happen.”
He cannot be omniscient then. He can only have a probability of what might happen in the future. He is no different than us then.
“But God also provided a plan to rescue his creation from the ultimate consequences of sin (which is death, see Romans 6:23), by sending His Son to die for us sinners (that includes the entire human race – see Romans 3:23).”
No, he sent himself to die (how can that happen if he is supernatural) which doesn’t make any moral sense. Who would make someone else die for others crimes? That is horrible! You are not a moral person if you think that someone has to spill blood for forgiveness to occur. Do you feel the need to kill a stranger when a friend of yours crosses you? If God really wanted to forgive us for doing what is natural to us according to his design, he could just forgive us. I can only conclude that God is a bloodthirsty nut.
“You say that God is evil, or at best, indifferent. The Bible makes it clear that God devised this rescue plan out of love for us (see John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 for starters), and He paid the highest possible price to redeem us. How does God feel about the wicked? See Ezekiel 33:11 and Isaiah 55:7.”
Wow, it is written so it must be so. Why don’t you use your brain.
“Regarding pain and suffering... sometimes we simply reap the consequences of our choices, but in other instances, I think Job chapters 1 and 2 reveals the real villain responsible for pain and suffering, and that is Satan.”
Fair enough. But what about the bridge tragedy, or the Virginia Tech massacre. I suppose these poor people deserved pain and suffering.
“Revelation 12:9 says that Satan was cast out of heaven and to the earth, and Jesus calls Satan the “prince of this world” (John 16:11). Rev. 12:12 says that the devil is filled with fury. So what does that make earth? To me, it means planet earth IS hell. However, this will not last. Jesus said (again in John 16:11) that the “prince of the world” stands condemned, and He promised that He will come back again (John 14:3), and He will destroy this planet (2 Peter 3:10) and Satan, and all of Satan’s followers (Rev. 20:7-10). God will create a new earth, and there will be no more death or pain (see Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5).”
So is God powerless to stop Satan? You are not making a good argument for Gods omnibenevolence and omnipotence.
“Also, even though God is omnipotent and immortal, God also feels pain.”
According to you’re reasoning, God is not omnipotent.
“The best example illustrating this is found in Genesis 6:5-7. Also, God permitted His Son Jesus to endure pain while on earth.”
Again, how do you justify murdering Jesus for everyone else’s crimes? How is this moral, and how does this even make sense.
“God did create Lucifer, but He did not “create” Satan per se'. Lucifer was originally blameless, and was a “covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), meaning, he often stood in the presence of God, and thus he was probably one of the highest ranking angels in heaven. It says in Ezekiel 28:15 that wickedness WAS FOUND in him (Lucifer). Lucifer became proud (Eze. 28:17), and Isaiah 14:14 says that Lucifer wanted to be in the place of God. Lucifer caused a rebellion in heaven (Eze. 28:17, Rev. 12:7-9), but he was cast to the earth. And now he is pissed, and is trying to make God and all of God’s creation pay. But God will make everything right in the end. ”

I know some other good fairy tales that you might enjoy. The three little pigs and red riding hood are good stories too.

"It only doesn’t abode well for God in your interpretation. I have no problem with my interpretation."

You haven't given logical justification of your interpretation. Your interpretation is as I said before like a battered wife saying "it was my fault, he didn't mean it, I love him."

>>"It is true, God let’s bad things happen to good people."
>Or maybe, people's lives are simply full of events, good and bad.

"No argument there."

What I mean is, if you use Occam's razor and simply remove God, you just have events.

>>"Jesus said that we would have trouble in this world (John 16:33)."
>You mean the authors simply made an observation about the world they inhabit.

"Actually, the intent of the verse is to point out that although they will have trouble in this world, Christ encouraged them to take heart, because He overcame the world."

This presupposes that Christ is actually divine. You have no evidence of this. Again, maybe there is just suffering in the world and the Bible authors are giving people a reason to get through it-the thought of everlasting life. Just because we want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

>>"That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)"
>Is it possible for Jesus not to know this?

"Certainly as a human on earth it was possible for him not to know, but God the Father knows. But now? Jesus probably knows, but I cannot know for certain."

You throw around "god the father knows" like you somehow know that he exists. How can you be certain about this claim. Maybe you just really really want it to be true. Like kids with Santa.

Quoth Rebely: "BTW, Pau, did you get my email requesting the Lewontin article? I did not receive a copy from you."

I did get the e-mail, and replied on 7/31 with the article. It could be that AOL didn't like it for some reason, or that your ISP kicked it out. I just now sent another copy from a non-AOL account. Let me know if you don't receive it shortly.

BTW, "Pau hana" is sort of all one word. I'm not "finished" altogether, just "done with working."

> Rebely said: "I do not actually invoke divine explanations for any problem I encounter in my research, I always look for material causes and explanations."

This is exactly the difference between the methodological naturalism (MM) that I urge should limit science and the philosophical naturalism (PM) that Dawkins promotes so stridently. Some say that scientists are 50% PM---that is, agnostics or atheists. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims it's 85% and should be higher.

Personally, I'm with MM, but not with PM. God is in my life, but science is "as if" He is at least hands-off for the nonce. I'm not a fan of Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria," either. I see no reason why religion should not inform science as to ethical applications of research, for example; and science should have no restriction as to MM investigation of the evolution of human moral codes.** Science may someday explain religion.*** Not a big deal to me; just another way of looking at religion. I think the big creationist hangup is that they believe that what science can explain is no longer worthy of God. Even though many scientists have said the opposite; Einstein was famous for saying how "der Alte" was revealed to him in his equations.

In fact, faith and knowledge can reinforce each other even in the same pursuit. For me personally, my entree to "a feeling of the numinous in the presence of the wholly Other"**** is music. Even though the ineffable speaks directly when performing Handel's Messiah, I want to learn about the musical, textual, and theological devices that Handel employed. For one performance with a national symphony, our choral leader was the principal keyboardist. He took a lot tof time, not just going through the notes, but, teaching us how to sing the proper sneer in "He trusted in God; let Him deliver him," and the how the music expresses the theology of "As in Adam all die." An unexamiined faith is nothing to be proud of. Do you want your lips to repeat the Apostle's Creed mindlessly, or would you rather know which part is a specific put-down of the Gnostics by Eusebius, and why the Trinty is defined so carefully? In another blog recently, I related the true story of a young woman at a California creationist presentation. After the talk, she stood up and testified that she had wanted to go to college, but decided not to because she might learn something that would challenge her faith. The audience cheered her decision.

> Rebely: " I do not know what was going through the Copernicus’ mind when he made the assumption that there should only be six planets. This sounds like his assumption was based on his limited understanding of the universe, and less related to ID."

Copericus argued that the exisrence of six planets evinced design in the Greek teleological or purposive sense, because the five Platonic solids could be inscribed between their orbits, and God would want this "perfection." It was what passed for an ID argument in the 16thC. Other examples are found in Westfall's book, "The Construction of Modern Science," which describes the transition from design arguments to mechanistic arguments over ythe course of a century. Today, mainstream scientists don't invoke ID arguments at the limits of their understanding, but in the 16thC they did---Even Newton proposed that God kept the planets in their orbits when his mathematical model came up with instabilities and perturbations. It was not due to limited understanding; it was a different mindset. Toward the end of the century, it was probably more of a shake-of-the-head admission of ignorance, like MDs today sometimes write "GOK"***** as a diagnosis on a patient's chart.

> Rebely redux: "[Dembski] may be right, it might not be possible for ID to be a mechanistic theory, I'll have to think about it some more. But I do not think it is necessary for it to be. I don't see anything wrong with detection of design in principle. After all, design may be the truth!"

Last point first: Design may in fact be the truth. But science is not the proper tool. An intelligence has "the power to choose among alternatives," says The Big D, and the intelligance is conscious. Therefore it can be arbitrary, not bound by natural, predictable law. How can science study that which is by definition unknowable?

All moderrn science is mechanistic; that's what MM means. That is, it proposes a model which tells us how the subject reacts in given situations. Newton's model is F=Gm(1)m(2)/d^2. Darwin's model is heritable variation with natural selection and common descent. Chemistry's model was the periodic table, until quantum mechanics provided a deeper model. Even "chance" quantum physics has a model: H|Psi> = ih(d/dt)}Psi> gives the amplitude of a probablity wave Psi(t) over time for a system whose Hamiltonian operator is H(t). It is the model, the mechanism, that allows research to proceed by filling in more details of it. What do we mean when we say a result is "unexpected"? We mean it doesn't accord wwitrh the model. What do we do when that happens? We jigger the model---or, in extreme cases, replace it.

"Detecting" design, without more is, I urge, bootless. What does it tell you? What guide to further research, without the---prohibited---knowledge of the designer or his (their?) processes and resulting designs? The only advantage I can see is to make you feel smug in your faith. You may say, well, ID "predicted" uses for junk DNA! True,****** but in doing so they violated their own precept that we can't inquire as to the nature of the designer(s). This prediction _assumed_ a characteristic of the designer---that he/they would not create something that had no use. Now, if you allow that camel nose under the tent, why does ID say that poor design is _not_ evidence against ID, because "we can't know the designer's' purposes"?

Design detection without more is a rersearch stopper. It says essentially that we can't know anything more about the subject once we determine it was designed. Did you listen to Dean Kenyon's ******* referenced lecture on origin of life? He says the main reason that we cling to Darwin is that "it has significant implications for biology." Well, no kidding, Kerlock! Why does anyone hold on to a theory? Because it works. He says that scientists will keep doing experiments trying to find plausible pathways for abiogenesis, even though Design is a more likely explanation. And that's a bad thing? Not giving up? In the Kitzmiller trial, Michael Behe was asked in cross why, if his central thesis was that evolution could not occur in a given situation, he did not perform experiments or gather data to demonstrate this? He replied that it would be "a waste of his time." I rest my case. The ultimate irony is trhat ID's vaunted ppredition of uses for "junk" DNA was not found by anyone connected with ID, but by evolutionary researchers! Then, of course, the Disco Inst jumped all over the ball and claimed it was theirs all along.

Sorry for the length. A bad case of logorrhea today.

=================
*--Isaacson, "Einstein: His Life and Universe" (Simon & Schuster, 2007). A long but engrossing picture. Isaacson also wrote "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life," which brings out his scientific studies; whgo knew that he was lionized in Europe for his scientific studies---such\ as the first mapping of the Gulf Stream.

**--Hauser, "Moral Minds," Shermer, "A Science of Good & Evil," and others..

***--Dennet, "Breaking the Spell," Ayala, and others.

****--William James, "The Varieties of Religious Experience"

*****-- "God only knows." (You didn't hear this from me.)

******--I have another prediction. Call it the Pau-hana lunar theory of history. I predict that every major human conflict or war in the next century will begin within a week of either a full moon or a new moon. You can take it to the lab.

*******--Way out of date: 1995. Urey-Oparin is no longer the model for OOL, and oxygen is out again for the early atmosphere. Kenyon, by the way, was a science expert for the Edwards v. Aguillard Arkansas creationist court case. The night before his deposition, he fled town, after seeing how the other creationists witnesses had got themselves skewered in their depositions. By the way, Dembksi pulled the same trick at Kitzmiller (Dover).

Oops. "MM" and "PM" in my comment above refer to "methodological materialism" and "philosophical materialism. Same thing as "naturalism," but the abbreviation may have been confusing.

In accordance with the Pau-hana maxim that if a little is good, a lot is better and too much is just enough, here is a short addition to my comment of last night.

I made much of modern MM science's requirement for a model or mechanism. One might think, no, the major criterion is evidence. Here's an example that shows the primacy of mechanism.

Alfred Wegner's 1912 hypothesis of contitntal drift was roundly criticized until the 1950s, and then was accepted wholeheartedly. Did the evidence suddenly appear out of nowhere? No.

Wegner proposed continental drift because of evidence: the fit of the coastlines of South America and Africa; similarities in geological formations at the margins of the continents; family relationships of animals on both continents; paleomagnetic alignments; and more. However, Wegner could only advance winds and tides as a mechanism for driving the separation. Elementary calculations showed that these were risibly inadequate. So the hyopothesis languished.

In the 1950s, entirely separate research brought forth the theory of plate tectonics: vast moving slabs of crust powered by powerful convection currents in the earth's mantle. Suddenly, there was a mechanism for Wegner's hypothesis. Just as suddenly, scientists lunged past each other to embrace continental drift. A credible mechaanism had appeared.

Evidence is important---and scientists did not forget Wegenr's evidence even though they did not accept his hypothesis. But it was the mechanism that made it a theory.

Thus I still maintain that ID without a mechanism cannot be an accepted scientific theory.

Rebely,

“If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa."

I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people? Just assume God doesn't exist, would you feel it ok to say murder someone over an argument as long as you knew God would not be there to judge and punish you? Let's say that even the authorities would never link you to the crime.....what would you do?

Bio prof said: "I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people?"

It is indeed ironic that recent evolutionary research supports Bio prof here. I can't put my finger on the reference just now, but several experiments have shown that when confronted with a moral choice in various situations, almost everyone makes similar choices. There is no significant difference between Christians, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and atheists.* Since the AA (agnostic/atheist) group obviously feels no divine compulsion, the inference is that at least some part of a moral code is embedded in our skulls.** The fact that all religions have some form of the golden rule reinforces that idea. Other animals seem to have moral codes. They behave toward their conspecifics in ways---altruism, for example---that appears unmotivated by fear of reward or punishment.***

Is this evidence for the non-existence of God? I don't think so. God may well have installed physical receivers in our heads for His transmitter. Again, scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves God.
================
*-There was one difference. The AAs had somewhat higher standards than the Christians as to protection of the environment. One wag has suggested that this is because they can't look forward to escaping to a heaven....

**--Marc Hauser, "Moral Minds" (Harper Collins, 2006) posits a morals generator in the mind, simialr to Chomsky's hard-wired language generator. The LG provides a substrate of primitive rules from which the mileu may fashion thousands of different grammars and vocabularies. The proposed MG likewise provides, Hauser asserts, a basic, evolved substrate which allows---but also constrains---many different moral codes. Google the title for a NY Times review dated 8/27/06.

***--Even some amoeba may have an incipient moral sense. Most individuals of the speciaes will initially send out signalling molecules offering cooperation. The they will follow a tit-for tat strategy depending upon whether the response indicates cooperation or aggression. I'm tolsd that some even have a more complex strategy, tit-for-tat-delayed.

"Is this evidence for the non-existence of God? I don't think so. God may well have installed physical receivers in our heads for His transmitter. Again, scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves God."

I agree whole-heartedly. My intention is simply to see if Rebely requires a cosmic cop-in-the-sky to make basic moral decisions that affect other humans happiness/suffering. I mean, afterall, it is not difficult to imagine god not existing. He made it clear that without god there could be no basis of morality, that we just make it up as we go. I just want to test this on Rebely and see if his statment holds.

Bio Prof wrote:
> I agree whole-heartedly. My intention is simply to see if Rebely requires a cosmic cop-in-the-sky to make basic moral decisions that affect other humans happiness/suffering. I mean, afterall, it is not difficult to imagine god not existing. He made it clear that without god there could be no basis of morality, that we just make it up as we go. I just want to test this on Rebely and see if his statment holds.

I am very busy right now, but I will attempt to address this and your other questions later in the week, so stay tuned.

Bio Prof said:

R: "Of course we should. Much of what I study involves carbon based systems. You think I am suggesting that we shouldn’t??"
BP: Thats what you said: "It is once you start studying it. Organic molecules? So what? Organic molecules do not equate with life."

Either you had a memory fault, or you deliberately misrepresented what I said. So I’ll regress. Here is a more complete record of our recent discussion:

BP: Scientists will readily admit ignorance of how life originated, how the Big Bang started, etc. It is not absurd to think that cells formed through basic chemistry, especially when organic molecules are readily formed throughout the cosmos.
R: It is once you start studying it. Organic molecules? So what? Organic molecules do not equate with life.
BP: Life is composed of organic molecules. Life as we know it is carbon based..shouldn't we therefore study carbon based systems?

I was responding to your notion that “it is not absurd to think that cells formed through basic chemistry”. I never said or even suggested that it was absurd to study carbon based systems. Your extrapolation was uncalled for.

R: "Huh? Oh, I see. All who believe in God choose to revel in ignorance. Is that your way of thinking, Bio Prof?"
BP: Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.

To be more specific, my Websters dictionary says that faith is belief without proof or evidence. I was speaking of faith in terms of belief without proof. My definition of faith may be incomplete, perhaps belief is more appropriate. Still, even if you have evidence for something, you still need to have some faith in the absence of proof.

BP: That which we don't have evidence for we are ignorant of. When you choose to fill gaps in our knowledge with god(s) you are in fact revelling in ignorance.

Ignorant? Of course. Reveling? Maybe. But I’m not blind. As far as our gaps over OOL are concerned, I find these OOL studies very interesting and hope that they continue. Perhaps the more these studies are done, the more eyes will be opened to the possibility of God.

R: "I have a couple of questions for you: Were you raised an atheist, or did you have a religious background of any kind? Do you think that all modern scientists were raised as athiests?"
BP: I was raised by parents who were devoit Catholics, I went to Catholic school K-12 and believed in God until late in college-when I started to think skeptically and examine claims. After reading the Bible in Old and New testament college courses I began to wonder how anyone could believe this story. So, no, I wasn't raised an atheist, it only took a reading of the Bible, a healthy dose of critical thinking and an abandonment of fear.

Thank you for your story. I guess you are living proof that just because someone was raised in a religious background does not guarantee they will remain that way. Obviously religion didn’t stop you from becoming an evolutionist. But I was not raised in a religious background (didn’t become a Christian until my teens), was indoctrinated with evolution during my college years, yet I still came to a different conclusion than you. Therefore, your insinuation that I hold to ID strictly because of Christianity has little merit.

R: "Wow, so confident you are! Are we close to inventing a time machine or something?"
BP: Are you close to inventing a God detector?

Not yet, still working on it. But Pau hana tells me that without a mechanism, a God detector wouldn’t be beneficial to science. It may result in shutting down science altogether. That might put you and I out of a job.

BP: Our portal through time is the genome, the fossil record and thousands of independent observations across numerous fields of inquiry.

Your time machine is still too coarse, not definitive, it needs more work.

BP: It is you who are overly confident that both God exists and that you have chosen the correct god to worship/fear.

Guilty as charged.

R: "Sure we do...origin of life, intelligence."
BP: Oh, so you are telling me that you have demonstrable evidence that life was created and that human intelligence is the product of a creator. Please cite these outstanding references so that I might see the light.

You are trapped by the philosophy of materialism. You will not be able to see the evidence that I would present.

R: "Perhaps, but they are often lumped together. When my biology professors taught it, they meant the whole “kit and kaboodle”, origin of life included. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life involves chemical evolution, does it not?"
BP: Chemical evolution and biological evolution are still different constructs. Biological evolution is still dependent on chemical evolution in a naturalistic explanation.

Yes it is. Since it has not been demonstrated that life evolved due strictly to natural causes, it should not be taught as fact.

R: "Just to be clear, what are these facts that you speak of? I’m not opposed to the teaching of “facts”, just the teaching of “claims” as fact."
BP: It is "fact" that life has changed drastically throughout earths history, fossils attest to this.

Drastically, huh? The fossil evidence does not prove this. Millions of missing links comes to mind. The fossil evidence is subject to interpretation.

BP: Genomes evolve, this "fact" is found through study of molecular biology and comparative genomics.

Perhaps. I find this aspect particularly intriguing and look forward to further study of this area. But again, subject to interpretation.

BP: Populations evolve, this "fact" has been demonstrated in the field and lab with hundreds of species. Speciation occurs, this "fact" has been observed in the lab and field. I could go on and on. The literature is there for you to read.

So long as facts are taught and interpretations are taught objectively and honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution.

R: "You mean science as defined by “methodological materialism”. Good for you. That’s a start."
BP: To be science, we must be able to observe, test and falsify. We cannot do this with a supernatural deity because it could have made it look as though nature obeys physical law, but the deity may be causing everything to move and we wouldn't be able to observe it. ID can explain everything and nothing because we can't determine a mechanism or detect the designer...not to mention that one is superfluous since natural law is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

You mean, natural law, combined with imagination, can explain the diversity of life. And so far, natural law, when combined with imagination, has been insufficient to explain the origin of life.

R: "Hopefully, you don’t mean like my “honest” genetics professor, who spent weeks preaching evolution and atheism. Hardly objective and honest teaching of evolution. Sorry, I’ll pass on that form of honesty."
BP: I don't know why a professor would even bring up god in a science class. I certainly wouldn't, it doesn't get you anywhere.

From my reading of your recent posts, you try and attack God and religion any chance you get. But hey, if you have enough self-control to leave your axe behind before entering the classroom, that’s great.

BP: Further, evolution occurs without a deity existing or not as far as we can tell. ID however depends on a deity existing so you would have to bring a theistic view to the classroom. That is the difference.

Sure, a theistic view...not a religious view.

R: "I do not support the teaching of religion in public funded schools, it violates the first amendment. I support the teaching of ID only in a form that excludes religion."
BP: God is involved by definition (though poor and illogical) of IC. IC would prevent a intelligence from forming naturally, so the designer of life has to be supernatural, or a god. You are still violating the establishment clause-and intentionally so.

Not the establishment of religion! I believe it is possible to present the ID case without introducing religion, but I realize that there is a fine line here. My issue isn’t so much about promoting ID in the classroom as it is the misrepresentation of evolution. The imposition of a specific philosophy (naturalism) crosses this line as far as I’m concerned.

R: "There is abundant evidence for ID, more than enough for my faith."
BP: Yeah, I know, if you walk on a beach and find a watch.....

Something like that, only much more impressive than any watch.

R: "Well, in light of recent events I wasn’t going to mention bridges.
BP: Oh, was I being insensitive? I have a question. How could anyone claim god is good when he allows things like this to happen. Arguing from an enemy gets you nowhere if you think god is omnipotent. You would have to admit god is either impotent to do anything or evil to allow what he supposedly loves to die like that.

I already addressed this question. Sorry that you didn’t like my answer.

BP: Adaptation, healing and thinking are the result of 3 billion years of evolution.

Prove it!

BP: You have no evidence that a god created humans with these abilities. If you do, present it.

I already presented some strong evidence in an earlier thread. You want something you can poke and prod or manipulate, or view under a microscope. I do not offer that. You are imprisoned by MM, so you can neither see nor understand my evidence.

Bio+prof said:
BP: Ok, I will address this at length.
R: “I find it ironic yet somewhat amusing that you in your Darwinist/evolutionist mindset pass judgment on the character of the designer, who may or may not be the Judeo-Christian God.”
BP: You mean “how dare I think for myself rather than accept unconditionally out of fear”.

Actually, no, that is not what I meant. Not even close.

R: “Who are you to judge whether or not God is evil?”
BP: How did you come to the conclusion that god is good? We use our own moral understanding to pass such judgement.

Okay, that's fair. Where did your moral understanding come from?

BP: I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people?

Seriously? No, I do not feel that I need it. Apparently, some people do need it.

BP: Please answer me.
R: “If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and is not concerned about good and evil. Good and evil should be irrelevant. But since morality is important to you, please continue reading.”
BP: This is nonsense. Pretend that God doesn’t exist (not difficult to do). Would you in any way change your moral character?

I have no doubt that my moral character would be different.

BP: The Golden rule, for instance, predated the Bible by many hundred years.

Actually, I’d say it predated it by much longer than that. I suspect it has been around since the beginning.

BP: Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives are intolerant of murder, theft, and have good reason for respecting and protecting kin over non-relative outgroups.

In my creationist viewpoint I do not find this at all surprising. I see a form of morality in my pet cats.

BP: Morality is based on happiness and decreasing suffering. This predates humanity!

Agreed!

BP: “Survival of the fittest”, “nature red in tooth and claw” are incomplete. Humans evolved in small groups, like many other primates live in now. Humans survived and had more offspring which survived by reciprocal altruism-doing unto others as they would have others do to them.
R: “Good question. I do not believe it was ever God’s will that anybody or anything should suffer or die. God gave us free-will, the freedom to make choices.”
BP: Then God is not omniscient, or if he is, he wanted us to suffer. This is the problem of theodicy.

You need to run a diagnostic on your logic unit. It seems to be faulty. Perhaps it has overheated during our discussion or something.

R: “God could have created preprogrammed automatons which continually do His bidding, and perhaps He has, I don’t know.”
BP: Or perhaps He doesn’t exist and we are just products of evolution.

Perhaps you’re right. In which case we’ll likely trigger our own extinction event before the end of this century and none of this will matter.

R: “But apparently God wanted a more meaningful relationship with humans.”
BP: So that is why we have one-way conversations with Him...
BP: Automatons are also uncritical of claims that God loves them, yet allows all sorts of horrible things to happen to them. Actions speak louder than words.
BP: Free-will means that God cannot be omniscient. If he is omniscient he will know what we will do in the future, and thus the future will be determined. If you say “he is outside of space-time so the future is indistinguishable from the past-present, then I will point out that to be transcendental means that He would not be able to act within space-time as everyone thinks he does. He cannot be omniscient then. He can only have a probability of what might happen in the future. He is no different than us then.

God is beyond our comprehension.

R: “But God also provided a plan to rescue his creation from the ultimate consequences of sin (which is death, see Romans 6:23), by sending His Son to die for us sinners (that includes the entire human race – see Romans 3:23).”
BP: No, he sent himself to die (how can that happen if he is supernatural) which doesn’t make any moral sense. Who would make someone else die for others crimes? That is horrible! You are not a moral person if you think that someone has to spill blood for forgiveness to occur. Do you feel the need to kill a stranger when a friend of yours crosses you? If God really wanted to forgive us for doing what is natural to us according to his design, he could just forgive us.

I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier post, in case you missed it: “Christ came and died ON HIS OWN VOLITION (John 10:17, 18; Phillipians 2:5-11), so that we did not have to die. God could have wiped the human race from existence, but HE LOVED US SO MUCH THAT HE PAID THE PRICE HIMSELF. That is the significance of The Gift. No man can pay for another’s sins, except Christ, who is sinless.”

BP: I can only conclude that God is a bloodthirsty nut.

Again, check your logic unit. You seem to be experiencing a type of race condition, that is, you keep racing to conclusions.

R: “You say that God is evil, or at best, indifferent. The Bible makes it clear that God devised this rescue plan out of love for us (see John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 for starters), and He paid the highest possible price to redeem us. How does God feel about the wicked? See Ezekiel 33:11 and Isaiah 55:7.”
BP: Wow, it is written so it must be so. Why don’t you use your brain.

I did use my brain. You asked some tough, legitimate questions about God and pain, suffering etc. Since my knowledge of God comes from the Bible, naturally I tried to answer your questions based on my interpretation of it. Why don’t you read the texts?

R: “Regarding pain and suffering... sometimes we simply reap the consequences of our choices, but in other instances, I think Job chapters 1 and 2 reveals the real villain responsible for pain and suffering, and that is Satan.”
BP: Fair enough. But what about the bridge tragedy, or the Virginia Tech massacre. I suppose these poor people deserved pain and suffering.

Perhaps you suppose that they deserve pain suffering, I do not. Re-read the comments above and below, it does not appear to be sinking in.

R: “Revelation 12:9 says that Satan was cast out of heaven and to the earth, and Jesus calls Satan the “prince of this world” (John 16:11). Rev. 12:12 says that the devil is filled with fury. So what does that make earth? To me, it means planet earth IS hell. However, this will not last. Jesus said (again in John 16:11) that the “prince of the world” stands condemned, and He promised that He will come back again (John 14:3), and He will destroy this planet (2 Peter 3:10) and Satan, and all of Satan’s followers (Rev. 20:7-10). God will create a new earth, and there will be no more death or pain (see Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5).”
BP: So is God powerless to stop Satan?

Of course not. Perhaps you missed that part where I indicated Satan will be destroyed.

BP: You are not making a good argument for Gods omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

Sorry to disappoint. I never said I had all the answers, and I was not trying to convince you of anything in particular. To do so would be a complete waste of time. I was just offering some insight. I am sorry if you do not find it helpful.

R: “Also, even though God is omnipotent and immortal, God also feels pain.”
BP: According to you’re reasoning, God is not omnipotent.

Sorry, I was making a contrast, which was unnecessary and not clear. The pain I am speaking of is emotional, not necessarily physical.

R: “The best example illustrating this is found in Genesis 6:5-7. Also, God permitted His Son Jesus to endure pain while on earth.”
BP: Again, how do you justify murdering Jesus for everyone else’s crimes? How is this moral, and how does this even make sense.

God is perfect and holy and selfless. Sin cannot abide in His presence. Sin is the transgression of God’s laws. Sin can also be described (in a coarse way) as selfishness. Transgressing God’s laws ultimately results in separation from the life-giver, and therefore death. If God merely forgives without consequence, sin is free to reign throughout the universe, and there would be no end to pain and suffering and unhappiness. In that respect He might as well start all over again and do everything that you suggested. Instead, God has apparently allowed these events to play to illustrate the consequences of sin, and will eventually bring to an end this sick game (as you call it) and destroy this world (and the devil). However, He loved His creation so much that He would rather die for us than terminate us. So while these events are played out, God has provided a means of forgiveness and salvation for those who accept and believe Him, and they will be rescued from the ultimate consequences of sin.

>>“God did create Lucifer, but He did not “create” Satan per se'. Lucifer was originally blameless, and was a “covering cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14), meaning, he often stood in the presence of God, and thus he was probably one of the highest ranking angels in heaven. It says in Ezekiel 28:15 that wickedness WAS FOUND in him (Lucifer). Lucifer became proud (Eze. 28:17), and Isaiah 14:14 says that Lucifer wanted to be in the place of God. Lucifer caused a rebellion in heaven (Eze. 28:17, Rev. 12:7-9), but he was cast to the earth. And now he is pissed, and is trying to make God and all of God’s creation pay. But God will make everything right in the end. ”
>I know some other good fairy tales that you might enjoy. The three little pigs and red riding hood are good stories too.

I’m already aware of those stories, but thanks. Perhaps you could recommend some science fiction?

Bio+prof said:
BP: "It only doesn’t abode well for God in your interpretation. I have no problem with my interpretation."
R: You haven't given logical justification of your interpretation.

Perhaps I have not. I admit I may have failed to adequately communicate my view. But neither have you given logical justification for your interpretation. You and I are on different frequencies.

BP: Your interpretation is as I said before like a battered wife saying "it was my fault, he didn't mean it, I love him."

Battered wife?
You are right, God most certainly does not need me to defend Him. I just tried to offer some insight, another point of view. I like your sense of humor, though.

Part of your problem is that you keep pretending to be God, and imagining what you would do (in your very limited wisdom and understanding) if you were in God’s shoes. Those are mighty big shoes to fill, and quite frankly, you can’t do it! Not to mention you have no idea of the entire scope and context, and so it is impossible for you (or me) to empathize with God’s position. Oops, sorry, starting to sound like battered wife again.

R: "It is true, God let’s bad things happen to good people."
BP: Or maybe, people's lives are simply full of events, good and bad.
R: "No argument there."
BP: What I mean is, if you use Occam's razor and simply remove God, you just have events.

No argument there.

R: "Jesus said that we would have trouble in this world (John 16:33)."
BP: You mean the authors simply made an observation about the world they inhabit.
R: "Actually, the intent of the verse is to point out that although they will have trouble in this world, Christ encouraged them to take heart, because He overcame the world."
BP: This presupposes that Christ is actually divine.

Yes, it does.

BP: You have no evidence of this.

What you mean is, I have no “scientific” evidence for this.

BP: Again, maybe there is just suffering in the world and the Bible authors are giving people a reason to get through it-the thought of everlasting life.

Maybe.

BP: Just because we want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

That’s right Bio Prof. Please keep that in mind when teaching your students all of your unproven claims of evolution.

R: "That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)"
BP: Is it possible for Jesus not to know this?
R: "Certainly as a human on earth it was possible for him not to know, but God the Father knows. But now? Jesus probably knows, but I cannot know for certain."
BP: You throw around "god the father knows" like you somehow know that he exists.

I do know that He exists.

BP: How can you be certain about this claim.

Faith.

BP: Maybe you just really really want it to be true. Like kids with Santa.

Maybe you’re right.

Bio Prof said:

Rebely,
R: “If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa."
BP: I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people? Just assume God doesn't exist, would you feel it ok to say murder someone over an argument as long as you knew God would not be there to judge and punish you? Let's say that even the authorities would never link you to the crime.....what would you do?

There is no telling what I’d do because I wouldn’t be the same person. In all likelihood though, I highly doubt that I would murder someone over an argument. Most atheists and agnostics that I know would not murder someone over an argument. However, people have murdered others for much less. People have been brutally murdered for being gay, or for being black, or for being of the “wrong” tribe or ethnicity or religion, etc. Apparently people somehow feel justified in these actions. In some primitive cultures, other people are considered “food”. When I was in college I had an acquaintance who was murdered when robbed because he had no money. Pretty darn senseless, wasn’t it?

So do we need a commandment “do not murder”? Seems so logical and obvious to be necessary. I suppose then that it should be unnecessary for every and any country and culture to have such an obvious commandment in their laws. However, since people fail to obey this law when there are consequences in their own nations and cultures, then without such an obvious law, people would be even more free to do it if there are no consequences. So, despite the logic of the commandment, people continually fail to obey it, and therefore seem to require it. As the apostle Paul states in Romans 3:20: “...through the law we become conscious of sin.”.

PH: "Is this evidence for the non-existence of God? I don't think so. God may well have installed physical receivers in our heads for His transmitter. Again, scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves God."
BP: I agree whole-heartedly. My intention is simply to see if Rebely requires a cosmic cop-in-the-sky to make basic moral decisions that affect other humans happiness/suffering. I mean, afterall, it is not difficult to imagine god not existing.
BP: He made it clear that without god there could be no basis of morality, that we just make it up as we go. I just want to test this on Rebely and see if his statment holds.

This time your I/O unit is failing. I said there would be no “absolute” morality. I specifically said that morality would be relative, I did not say that it had no basis. First the memory fault (or misrepresentation, which may possibly an I/O problem), then the logic unit, now the I/O unit. I recommend you run a full diagnostic on yourself.

>>Bio Prof: "Are you close to inventing a God detector?
> Rebel_y: "Not yet, still working on it. But Pau hana tells me that without a mechanism, a God detector wouldn’t be beneficial to science. It may result in shutting down science altogether. That might put you and I out of a job."

If I weren't retired, it would put me out of a job too. No research, no inventions. No inventions, goodbye patent attorneys. We're all in the soup together.

>>Bio Prof lobs: "He made it clear that without god there could be no basis of morality, that we just make it up as we go."
> Rebely returns: "I said there would be no 'absolute' morality. I specifically said that morality would be relative, I did not say that it had no basis."

I disagree with R here. The point of the books and research I mentioned before is that there are some basic moral tenets upon which all humans seem to agree, even though they may differ on others. The golden rule is (pretty much) observed by all religions, by primitive tribes, and by Richard Dawkins, for example.

This was the cusp of my hard-wired evolutionary moral receiver* hypothesis. Even though people disagree on a number of moral precepts, there are some that seem to be absolute, just as in grammar there are some deep rules that all languages follow even in their splendiferous variety. And these latter moral rules seem more basic, more fundamental.

But, R, how can you say that God provides an absolute basis for morality? God prohibits Roman Catholics from divorce and birth control as moral rules. Absolutely, in saecula saeculorum. God---presumably the same God---allows both to us Lutherans. Mormons, who profess the Christian God (although not the Creed) abstain from hot drink as an absolute moral precept, wheareas you can find a Lutheran church by following the smell of bad coffee. So each religion has its own absolute moral precepts, some of which conflict with those of other religion---even those which aver the same God. In what sense is this arrangement "absolute"? In what respect is it not "relative"?

==================
*-- One of the researches, Hauser's I think, turned up what apopear to be two separate moral senses. When confronted by a choice between saving, say, a nearby individual and saving more people by sacrificing the indicvidual, some will choose one course, some the other. But the ones who choose to save the individual do so without conscious reflection, whereas the ones who choose to save the greater number will always hesitate before their choice. Our minds seem to have both an "emotional" and a "cognitive" moral sense, which may disagree. I find this a fascinating field, both as to the science and as to the philosophical implications.

>>Bio prof said: "I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people?"
>Pau hana said: It is indeed ironic that recent evolutionary research supports Bio prof here. I can't put my finger on the reference just now, but several experiments have shown that when confronted with a moral choice in various situations, almost everyone makes similar choices. There is no significant difference between Christians, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and atheists.*

That may be true. Not sure what this (above) has to do with evolutionary research though. I have heard of the some of these statistics, would be interesting to see a breakdown of how different cultures respond to different types of moral choices.

PH: Since the AA (agnostic/atheist) group obviously feels no divine compulsion, the inference is that at least some part of a moral code is embedded in our skulls. ** The fact that all religions have some form of the golden rule reinforces that idea. Other animals seem to have moral codes. They behave toward their conspecifics in ways---altruism, for example---that appears unmotivated by fear of reward or punishment.***Is this evidence for the non-existence of God? I don't think so. God may well have installed physical receivers in our heads for His transmitter.

Perhaps we have both the moral code and moral receivers embedded in our skulls. Whatever it is, different people seem to experience different sensitivities to it/them.

PH: Again, scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves God.

Agreed.

================
PH: *-There was one difference. The AAs had somewhat higher standards than the Christians as to protection of the environment. One wag has suggested that this is because they can't look forward to escaping to a heaven....

Alas, to my chagrin I have seen this in my own experience. I have known a number of Christians who really care about the environment and actively work toward taking better care of this planet, but unfortunately I have seen too many Christians with an indifferent attitude toward the environment. If Christians treat earth as a garbage dump, will they treat heaven the same way? In my view, God made us stewards of this planet, and more than anyone else believers should be the ones taking the lead and setting the example for others to follow. As a whole, Christians ought to be more respectful and take better care of the environment.
>>Bio Prof lobs: "He made it clear that without god there could be no basis of morality, that we just make it up as we go."
> Rebely returns: "I said there would be no 'absolute' morality. I specifically said that morality would be relative, I did not say that it had no basis."
PH: I disagree with R here. The point of the books and research I mentioned before is that there are some basic moral tenets upon which all humans seem to agree, even though they may differ on others.

Are you saying that if all humans agree on a tenet, then that becomes an absolute? I wonder what tenets all humans could agree on.

PH: The golden rule is (pretty much) observed by all religions, by primitive tribes, and by Richard Dawkins, for example.

Even Richard Dawkins! I guess that proves that the golden rule is absolute!

PH: But, R, how can you say that God provides an absolute basis for morality? God prohibits Roman Catholics from divorce and birth control as moral rules. Absolutely, in saecula saeculorum. God---presumably the same God---allows both to us Lutherans. Mormons, who profess the Christian God (although not the Creed) abstain from hot drink as an absolute moral precept, wheareas you can find a Lutheran church by following the smell of bad coffee. So each religion has its own absolute moral precepts, some of which conflict with those of other religion---even those which aver the same God. In what sense is this arrangement "absolute"? In what respect is it not "relative"?

Good point. God can provide an absolute basis for morality by virtue of the fact of being God. But as you are aware, each Christian denomination has different traditions, standards or interpretations of the Bible.

How do I sort this out? I believe God’s absolutes boil down to the following principle: Love. This is because God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). The importance of love is repeated throughout the Bible. Some key NT texts are listed below:

The Golden Rule: Matthew 7:12
Love is the Greatest Commandment: Matthew 22:35-40
Want to be perfect? Love your enemies: Matthew 5:43-48
Parable of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25-37
Apostle Paul describes the importance of love: 1 Corinthians 13

BTW Pau hana, I did receive the article. Thanks!

Rebely: "How do I sort this out? I believe God’s absolutes boil down to the following principle: Love."

From my own philosophical and religious viewpoint, I would agree. The sum and substance of the absolutes are in Matthew 22:37-39: "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

But are these absolutes necessarily "from God"? I could argue that these can be considered moral absolutes* for all human beings, even without the concept of God. That is, they are standards for everyone, and everyone would be better off by following them. Why? Because human society evolved that way. Because our brains happen to be hard-wired in that manner for increased survival. Do you think we could convince Bio prof of this?

So, once again, I think God escapes the scientific net even if one grants that some moral concepts are absolute.

(The obvious next subject, not addressed here, is that these two absolutes are much too general to guide any specific course of action. Different cults** may particularize them very differently to specific classes of actions. The question then becomes: Can we say that any of these more specific actions are moral or immoral without reference to a supernatural being? Because, for example, they always increase probabilities for survival? Michael Shermer*** thinks so, although you can color me dubious on that point.

(Another subject, too lengthy for this forum, is why humans should need any kind of moral code. Why are we not simply mentally incapable of acting in immoral ways as (almost all?) animals are? My short answer is that only humans have a recursive**** "secondary representation system." Our brains, like animal brains, model the world using a primary representation system. But we alone have a developed capability to model our own minds. This SRS allows us to look inside ourselves, to imagine things that may differ from the model of the PRS. For example, the SRS allows uas to imagine the concepts of good and evil. That is, the advent of the SRS exactly marks the Biblical Fall. Whoa! Don't get me started on this!)

So there you are. More than you wanted to know, yet less than satisfying. The Pau hana precept.

====================
*-- Substituting something like "human nature" for "the Lord your God".

**-- Using this word in the neutral anthropological sense of any cohesive belief system.

***--Shermer, "The Science of Good abnd Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule " (Washington Post, 2004) A worthy read even if you can't swallow everything he says.

****-- Like all recursive mechanisms, some part must be left undefined. I would call this part of the SRS the "subconscious."

Pau hana
"The sum and substance of the absolutes are in Matthew 22:37-39...."

As to the question of what else might or might not be moral absolutes. Listening to a sernmon this morning on "when bad things happen to good people" got me thinking (afterwards, of course) about how the teachings of the New Testament differ from those of the Old Testament.

The OT is full of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots. Commandments. Prophets telling people about specific situations: drop the golden-calf project, guys; invade East Overshoe tomorrow; God will roast you if you build a fire on the Sabbath.**

In the NT, Jesus teaches not by ukase but mostly by parable. "But _who_ is my neighbor?" the Good Samaritan story in response to the question on the second great commandment. God doesn't tell us what to do in these specific situations. He invites us to consider for ourselves how the absolutes might apply to us as individuals. Observations are given metaphorically: The rain falls on the just and on the unjust.*** Even commands are given metaphorically, rather than specifically: remove the log from your own eye before incising the mote from mine. Some teachings are, I think, even hyperbolic---intended to shock people into thinking rather than to be taken literally: the camel**** and the needle's eye forces us to think about how riches can distract us, and is not a commandement to divest our 401(k)s.

In most cases, then, I think the spirit of the NT is that we should interpret a small number of absolutes, rather than multiplying them to cover every conceivable situations. And I think that this accords with what we are learning from sociological and evolutionary studies.

One other matter---as lagniappe or affliction---as to whether moral codes are necessarily religious. The Creed says that Jesus is fuuly Man and fully God. This is always treated as a mystery, a paradox to be overcome by faith. I don't think it is, and that perhaps this could even provide a bridge between Christianity and secular humanism. My nascent thought is that Jesus is God precisely because He fully reflects unalloyed human nature, the stuff that makes us what we are from wherever we came from. This is only a rough beginning, and needs much more drawing-board time, but comment if you wish. I don't believe in Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria," but I do think that materialistic science and religion can be mutually interoperable in some sense.

Oh yeah. The theories of consciousness involving recursion are discussed in Metzinger, "Being No One: The Self-Model of Subjectivity" (MIT Press 2003), and Douglas Hofstadter, "I Am a Strange Loop" (Basic Books 2007). The former is a deep 700-page tome that describes itself as only a few preliminary steps toward a theory. Hofstadter is shorter and much more accessible. Particularly interesting is a lengthy discussion of Godel's proof**** to argue that consciousness is a mental symbol that can manipulate a mental symbol, including itself.

============
*-- I often quote myself; it adds spice to my conversation.

**-- Our hotel room in Jerusalem had elevators that automatically cycled between floors on the Sabbath. Today, "interfering with the operation of an electrical circuit" breaks the Sabbath. Why? Because this might cause a spark, and a spark can be thought of as a type of fire. No comment.

***-- We completely misunderstand this as bad things (rain) happening to good people. The Jews who heard this story lived in the desert, where rain was a Good Thing. A good thing that provided a boon to bad people even though they didn't deserve it.

****-- some authorities claim that the original was "rope"---trying to thread a needle with a rope.

*****-- Which also figured prominently in his earlier Pulitzer-prize book, "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" (Basic Books 1979).

I've only addressed some of this:

R: "Huh? Oh, I see. All who believe in God choose to revel in ignorance. Is that your way of thinking, Bio Prof?"
BP: Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.
To be more specific, my Websters dictionary says that faith is belief without proof or evidence. I was speaking of faith in terms of belief without proof. My definition of faith may be incomplete, perhaps belief is more appropriate. Still, even if you have evidence for something, you still need to have some faith in the absence of proof.
I reply: Plug in your definition for “faith” in your last sentence and you get this illogical statement:
“Still, even if you have evidence for something, you still need to have some belief without proof or evidence in the absence of proof.”

[BP: That which we don't have evidence for we are ignorant of. When you choose to fill gaps in our knowledge with god(s) you are in fact revelling in ignorance.
Ignorant? Of course. Reveling? Maybe. But I’m not blind. As far as our gaps over OOL are concerned, I find these OOL studies very interesting and hope that they continue. Perhaps the more these studies are done, the more eyes will be opened to the possibility of God.]
I reply: The “possibility of God” is based on gap-filling; ignorance. The possibility of god(s) could only be raised when there is evidence that god(s) exists. Based on your logic, without any evidence of god(s) for millennia, perhaps the more we look for god(s) the more eyes will be opened by the possibility of OOL (however, unlike the faithful, scientists are actually trying to elucidate positive evidence for OOL).
[R: "I have a couple of questions for you: Were you raised an atheist, or did you have a religious background of any kind? Do you think that all modern scientists were raised as athiests?"
BP: I was raised by parents who were devoit Catholics, I went to Catholic school K-12 and believed in God until late in college-when I started to think skeptically and examine claims. After reading the Bible in Old and New testament college courses I began to wonder how anyone could believe this story. So, no, I wasn't raised an atheist, it only took a reading of the Bible, a healthy dose of critical thinking and an abandonment of fear.
Thank you for your story. I guess you are living proof that just because someone was raised in a religious background does not guarantee they will remain that way. Obviously religion didn’t stop you from becoming an evolutionist. But I was not raised in a religious background (didn’t become a Christian until my teens), was indoctrinated with evolution during my college years, yet I still came to a different conclusion than you. Therefore, your insinuation that I hold to ID strictly because of Christianity has little merit.]
We can talk about personal experiences all we want. The fact is that ID is a Christian movement. This is spelled out by Phillip Johnson, the Wedge Document, and most of the main fellows are theologians (Wells, Dembski). If you really learned the scientific method in college then you would realize that ID “theory” is not following it and is explicitly working to redefine science in order to all supernatural causation. You stated yourself that you became a Christian and then was “indoctrinated” with a scientific theory that went against what your faith taught. Your conclusion is highly questionable given your faith-my argument does have merit. It would have been more convincing had you told me you were an atheist who backs ID….yet this would be very difficult to justify I suppose. The fact is irrespective of your beliefs, the science of evolution is so evidence based, and ID so lacking that on objective terms there really is no case for ID.
[BP: Our portal through time is the genome, the fossil record and thousands of independent observations across numerous fields of inquiry.
Your time machine is still too coarse, not definitive, it needs more work.]
I reply: Please expand on this. This is a “just so” statement, like Behe’s in court when he was asked whether he read the stack of books/articles on the evolution of the immune system and simply stated “this isn’t enough”. I don’t really know how you can make this statement given what we have learned in recent decades.

[BP: It is you who are overly confident that both God exists and that you have chosen the correct god to worship/fear.
Guilty as charged.]
I reply: How can you be sure in the least? You are so sure that my “time machine is still too course, not definitive, it needs more work”. It is funny that you can be so skeptical of thousands of independent, controlled scientific observations….yet ‘know’ you have chosen the right god, whom you are sure exists. How do you justify this?
[R: "Sure we do...origin of life, intelligence."
BP: Oh, so you are telling me that you have demonstrable evidence that life was created and that human intelligence is the product of a creator. Please cite these outstanding references so that I might see the light.
You are trapped by the philosophy of materialism. You will not be able to see the evidence that I would present.]
Riiiiiiigggggghhhhttttt. “I” am trapped by a philosophy??? Sorry, I simply require evidence of something to speak intelligibly about it. You admit earlier that your “faith” is belief without evidence. You also state that you can present ‘evidence’ that life was created, that a designer exists and has endowed us with intelligence. You finally state that I will not be able to “see” this evidence because I am “trapped” by my philosophy of materialism. What “evidence” could this possibly be then? Your personal experience? Something God whispered to you while you were brushing your teeth? A gut feeling that things are so complicated? Please present this evidence, and I will try to “see it”.
[R: "Perhaps, but they are often lumped together. When my biology professors taught it, they meant the whole “kit and kaboodle”, origin of life included. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life involves chemical evolution, does it not?"
BP: Chemical evolution and biological evolution are still different constructs. Biological evolution is still dependent on chemical evolution in a naturalistic explanation.
Yes it is. Since it has not been demonstrated that life evolved due strictly to natural causes, it should not be taught as fact.]
I reply: Yet everything in the universe from stars to quarks, from snails to humans obey the same physical laws. Stars evolve as life does. Order can be made from disorder through chemistry and physics. For what reason should we think that life did not form through a natural process. Oh, that’s right. Because you want credit to go to god! Right, if life forms naturally then god sort of has, well, nothing at all to do.
[R: "Just to be clear, what are these facts that you speak of? I’m not opposed to the teaching of “facts”, just the teaching of “claims” as fact."
BP: It is "fact" that life has changed drastically throughout earths history, fossils attest to this.
Drastically, huh? The fossil evidence does not prove this. Millions of missing links comes to mind. The fossil evidence is subject to interpretation.]
Well, then you interpret the record starting with single-celled organisms, moving through soft-bodied and simple arthropod-like organisms, and moving up in complexity to fish, amphibs, dinosaurs, reptiles, birds and mammals in progression. Not to mention the fact that most of what we see is extinct. How does this not point to evolution? Missing links is a bad argument, since many lineages are well represented in the fossil record with very clear evolutionary progressions, not to mention the fact that fossilization is extremely rare. Look outside. Do dead things just pile up everywhere????
[BP: Genomes evolve, this "fact" is found through study of molecular biology and comparative genomics.
Perhaps. I find this aspect particularly intriguing and look forward to further study of this area. But again, subject to interpretation.]
Yeah, interpretation, not prejudice. You look forward to ANYTHING that might contradict evolutionary theory in “further study” which is “subject to interpretation”. Good luck.
[BP: Populations evolve, this "fact" has been demonstrated in the field and lab with hundreds of species. Speciation occurs, this "fact" has been observed in the lab and field. I could go on and on. The literature is there for you to read.
So long as facts are taught and interpretations are taught objectively and honestly, I have no problem with the teaching of evolution.]
I reply: They are.
[R: "You mean science as defined by “methodological materialism”. Good for you. That’s a start."
BP: To be science, we must be able to observe, test and falsify. We cannot do this with a supernatural deity because it could have made it look as though nature obeys physical law, but the deity may be causing everything to move and we wouldn't be able to observe it. ID can explain everything and nothing because we can't determine a mechanism or detect the designer...not to mention that one is superfluous since natural law is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.
You mean, natural law, combined with imagination, can explain the diversity of life. And so far, natural law, when combined with imagination, has been insufficient to explain the origin of life.]
Well, we can make the same argument for gravity, now can’t we? What are you arguing here? That supernatural law should be invoked? What are these laws? That anything and everything are possible. [The First and Only Law of Supernaturalism: Natural Law is subject to violation at any moment, and nothing is outside the bound of supernatural agents, except logical absurdities.]
[R: "Hopefully, you don’t mean like my “honest” genetics professor, who spent weeks preaching evolution and atheism. Hardly objective and honest teaching of evolution. Sorry, I’ll pass on that form of honesty."
BP: I don't know why a professor would even bring up god in a science class. I certainly wouldn't, it doesn't get you anywhere.
From my reading of your recent posts, you try and attack God and religion any chance you get. But hey, if you have enough self-control to leave your axe behind before entering the classroom, that’s great.]
When it comes to the god question, we all have an opinion. The axe I have to grind is with ID which purports to be able to prove gods existence, and wants this nonsense taught in school. I find religion dangerous to society as a whole, while I have no doubt it is consoling at a personal level, I found this consolation when I was religious. However, in the classroom I find no reason to bring up god(s). they don’t add to the description of nature.
[BP: Further, evolution occurs without a deity existing or not as far as we can tell. ID however depends on a deity existing so you would have to bring a theistic view to the classroom. That is the difference.
Sure, a theistic view...not a religious view.]
LOL. What is the difference???? How do you divorce the two?
[R: "I do not support the teaching of religion in public funded schools, it violates the first amendment. I support the teaching of ID only in a form that excludes religion."
BP: God is involved by definition (though poor and illogical) of IC. IC would prevent a intelligence from forming naturally, so the designer of life has to be supernatural, or a god. You are still violating the establishment clause-and intentionally so.
Not the establishment of religion! I believe it is possible to present the ID case without introducing religion, but I realize that there is a fine line here. My issue isn’t so much about promoting ID in the classroom as it is the misrepresentation of evolution. The imposition of a specific philosophy (naturalism) crosses this line as far as I’m concerned.]
“A fine line” indeed!! The ID case is a theistic philosophy with a fine veneer of scientific fraud. Further, how is evolution “misrepresented” in the classroom? Naturalism is not taught in the evolution courses at universities. Methodological naturalism is the philosophy of science, not naturalism. We do not teach students that evolution proves god doesn’t exist because the theory works whether god does or doesn’t. Your argument is based on YOUR need for evolution to be false, since it conflicts with your faith and worldview.
[R: "There is abundant evidence for ID, more than enough for my faith."
BP: Yeah, I know, if you walk on a beach and find a watch.....
Something like that, only much more impressive than any watch.]
Natural selection has answered the watchmaker argument.
[R: "Well, in light of recent events I wasn’t going to mention bridges.
BP: Oh, was I being insensitive? I have a question. How could anyone claim god is good when he allows things like this to happen. Arguing from an enemy gets you nowhere if you think god is omnipotent. You would have to admit god is either impotent to do anything or evil to allow what he supposedly loves to die like that.
I already addressed this question. Sorry that you didn’t like my answer.]
I reply: Your answer was illogical. So I don’t recognize your address. So that leaves either impotent or evil….based on the OT I would side with evil.

[BP: Adaptation, healing and thinking are the result of 3 billion years of evolution.
Prove it!]
I reply: Adaptation is well understood through mutation and selection. Healing is based on immunity, the evolution of the immune system has much evidence. Thinking is highly complex, and involves both genes and behavior. Everything from neural structure through development to the origin of the ion channels in neurons are being studied evolutionarily. Evolutionary psychology is providing an understanding of the origin and selection of behaviors. We share much with other mammals both physiologically and behaviorally. All of the evidence points this way. Further, no one can “prove it”. Any thinking person would not make this demand. Why don’t you provide evidence that each of these was created by god? Just one piece of evidence would do.
[BP: You have no evidence that a god created humans with these abilities. If you do, present it.
I already presented some strong evidence in an earlier thread. You want something you can poke and prod or manipulate, or view under a microscope. I do not offer that. You are imprisoned by MM, so you can neither see nor understand my evidence.]
I reply: Oh, so you have nothing. Thanks.
[R: “I find it ironic yet somewhat amusing that you in your Darwinist/evolutionist mindset pass judgment on the character of the designer, who may or may not be the Judeo-Christian God.”
BP: You mean “how dare I think for myself rather than accept unconditionally out of fear”.
Actually, no, that is not what I meant. Not even close.]
I reply: Please explain.
[R: “Who are you to judge whether or not God is evil?”
BP: How did you come to the conclusion that god is good? We use our own moral understanding to pass such judgement.
Okay, that's fair. Where did your moral understanding come from?]
Where does a chimpanzee’s moral understanding come from? Where does a meerkat’s moral understanding come from? Human’s lived in small groups, like chimps, like meerkats. Game theory applied to populations demonstrates that being intolerant of murder, steeling and rape are a result of kin selection and reciprocal altruism because they allow individuals within the group to pass on more genes than those who do not practice this behavior. Our morals are based on happiness and prevention of suffering. Is it difficult to see how we could make objective morals without a deity? The ethics written in the Bible were written in other treatises both religious and philosophical centuries earlier and are a result of hundreds of generations of human interactions and thousands of millions of social interactions and natural selection prior to human origins.
[BP: I want you to seriously answer this: do you really need the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to know not to kill people?
Seriously? No, I do not feel that I need it. Apparently, some people do need it.]
You have just fatally undermined your case. If you don’t need the commandment, then you admit that you didn’t need god to tell you not to kill people. You have a deep feeling that killing one of your own species is wrong; the closer related by birth or experience, the more unthinkable. If you don’t need the commandment, then morals are found elsewhere. Thanks.
[BP: Please answer me.
R: “If you are right, that God does not exist and there is no designer, then there is no absolute moral law or authority. Morality becomes relative - what may be offensive or wrong to one person (or culture) may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice-versa. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and is not concerned about good and evil. Good and evil should be irrelevant. But since morality is important to you, please continue reading.”
BP: This is nonsense. Pretend that God doesn’t exist (not difficult to do). Would you in any way change your moral character?
I have no doubt that my moral character would be different.]
What would be different? What would you change about your behavior? I am genuinely interested.
[R: “But apparently God wanted a more meaningful relationship with humans.”
BP: So that is why we have one-way conversations with Him...
BP: Automatons are also uncritical of claims that God loves them, yet allows all sorts of horrible things to happen to them. Actions speak louder than words.
BP: Free-will means that God cannot be omniscient. If he is omniscient he will know what we will do in the future, and thus the future will be determined. If you say “he is outside of space-time so the future is indistinguishable from the past-present, then I will point out that to be transcendental means that He would not be able to act within space-time as everyone thinks he does. He cannot be omniscient then. He can only have a probability of what might happen in the future. He is no different than us then.
God is beyond our comprehension.]
Cop out.
[R: “But God also provided a plan to rescue his creation from the ultimate consequences of sin (which is death, see Romans 6:23), by sending His Son to die for us sinners (that includes the entire human race – see Romans 3:23).”
BP: No, he sent himself to die (how can that happen if he is supernatural) which doesn’t make any moral sense. Who would make someone else die for others crimes? That is horrible! You are not a moral person if you think that someone has to spill blood for forgiveness to occur. Do you feel the need to kill a stranger when a friend of yours crosses you? If God really wanted to forgive us for doing what is natural to us according to his design, he could just forgive us.
I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier post, in case you missed it: “Christ came and died ON HIS OWN VOLITION (John 10:17, 18; Phillipians 2:5-11), so that we did not have to die. God could have wiped the human race from existence, but HE LOVED US SO MUCH THAT HE PAID THE PRICE HIMSELF. That is the significance of The Gift. No man can pay for another’s sins, except Christ, who is sinless.”]
So let me get this straight…..God came down to be murdered (if we have free-will how did he know he would be killed??) so that he would not have to kill us. If he loved us so much, why even threaten to wipe us out? Would you threaten to murder your child for disobeying you (even though the Bible tells you that you should murder your child for this offense). Think of your logic here. God had himself killed so that he would not have to kill us for sins that he knew we would commit based on a tree that he placed to temp us. OK.
[BP: I can only conclude that God is a bloodthirsty nut.
Again, check your logic unit. You seem to be experiencing a type of race condition, that is, you keep racing to conclusions.]
Nope, that is the logical extension.
[R: “You say that God is evil, or at best, indifferent. The Bible makes it clear that God devised this rescue plan out of love for us (see John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 for starters), and He paid the highest possible price to redeem us. How does God feel about the wicked? See Ezekiel 33:11 and Isaiah 55:7.”
BP: Wow, it is written so it must be so. Why don’t you use your brain.
I did use my brain. You asked some tough, legitimate questions about God and pain, suffering etc. Since my knowledge of God comes from the Bible, naturally I tried to answer your questions based on my interpretation of it. Why don’t you read the texts?]
Your proof of God also comes from the Bible. The Bible is its own authority; which is irrational. I have read them, and that is why I don’t believe in Yahweh or Jesus.
[R: “Regarding pain and suffering... sometimes we simply reap the consequences of our choices, but in other instances, I think Job chapters 1 and 2 reveals the real villain responsible for pain and suffering, and that is Satan.”
BP: Fair enough. But what about the bridge tragedy, or the Virginia Tech massacre. I suppose these poor people deserved pain and suffering.
Perhaps you suppose that they deserve pain suffering, I do not. Re-read the comments above and below, it does not appear to be sinking in.]
I certainly didn’t say that. You said: “sometimes we simply reap the consequences of our choices, but in other instances, I think Job chapters 1 and 2 reveals the real villain responsible for pain and suffering, and that is Satan.” I am asking about suffering in which we are just sitting in a classroom or driving over a bridge and the unthinkable occurs. Is this God loving us? If so, I don’t want to be loved.
[R: “Revelation 12:9 says that Satan was cast out of heaven and to the earth, and Jesus calls Satan the “prince of this world” (John 16:11). Rev. 12:12 says that the devil is filled with fury. So what does that make earth? To me, it means planet earth IS hell. However, this will not last. Jesus said (again in John 16:11) that the “prince of the world” stands condemned, and He promised that He will come back again (John 14:3), and He will destroy this planet (2 Peter 3:10) and Satan, and all of Satan’s followers (Rev. 20:7-10). God will create a new earth, and there will be no more death or pain (see Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-5).”
BP: So is God powerless to stop Satan?
Of course not. Perhaps you missed that part where I indicated Satan will be destroyed.]
This is where the religious mind is warped. If god loved us and didn’t want us to suffer, why not just get rid of Satan at the get-go? Apparently, Satan plays an important role for God…testing who will have faith and obey, who will not. This is sick. Your thinking is horribly twisted by religious brainwashing.
[BP: You are not making a good argument for Gods omnibenevolence and omnipotence.
Sorry to disappoint. I never said I had all the answers, and I was not trying to convince you of anything in particular. To do so would be a complete waste of time. I was just offering some insight. I am sorry if you do not find it helpful.]
Translated: While I realize that you are correct and that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibelevolent I must believe he is or he will burn me for eternity. Why not just admit that these beliefs defy logic?
[R: “Also, even though God is omnipotent and immortal, God also feels pain.”
BP: According to you’re reasoning, God is not omnipotent.
Sorry, I was making a contrast, which was unnecessary and not clear. The pain I am speaking of is emotional, not necessarily physical.]
What does it mean to be emotional without having physical presence? Provide an example of this.
[R: “The best example illustrating this is found in Genesis 6:5-7. Also, God permitted His Son Jesus to endure pain while on earth.”
BP: Again, how do you justify murdering Jesus for everyone else’s crimes? How is this moral, and how does this even make sense.
God is perfect and holy and selfless. Sin cannot abide in His presence. Sin is the transgression of God’s laws. Sin can also be described (in a coarse way) as selfishness. Transgressing God’s laws ultimately results in separation from the life-giver, and therefore death. If God merely forgives without consequence, sin is free to reign throughout the universe, and there would be no end to pain and suffering and unhappiness. In that respect He might as well start all over again and do everything that you suggested. Instead, God has apparently allowed these events to play to illustrate the consequences of sin, and will eventually bring to an end this sick game (as you call it) and destroy this world (and the devil). However, He loved His creation so much that He would rather die for us than terminate us. So while these events are played out, God has provided a means of forgiveness and salvation for those who accept and believe Him, and they will be rescued from the ultimate consequences of sin.]
Here it is: “In that respect He might as well start all over again and do everything that you suggested.” If everything we do pisses him off, and he wants to punish us for this, why did he create us this way as you suggest????? The whole death for sin thing is just bloodthirsty madness. You said: “Instead, God has apparently allowed these events to play to illustrate the consequences of sin, and will eventually bring to an end this sick game (as you call it) and destroy this world (and the devil). However, He loved His creation so much that He would rather die for us than terminate us. So while these events are played out, God has provided a means of forgiveness and salvation for those who accept and believe Him, and they will be rescued from the ultimate consequences of sin.” Why not just forgive us????? If your friend hurts your feelings, do you feel the need to cut your arm off so that you can forgive him???? Christianity is insanity.

[BP: You have no evidence of this.
R: What you mean is, I have no “scientific” evidence for this.]

What is your evidence then?

[BP: Just because we want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

That’s right Bio Prof. Please keep that in mind when teaching your students all of your unproven claims of evolution.]

We don't prove things in science. You misunderstand the scientific method. Evolution is firmly established...faith is not. You said yourself ID could be taught...yet there is no evidence for it. I mean, the podcasts by the DI doesn't ever produce ANY evidence for ID.

[R: "That is incorrect. Jesus said he did not know when he would be coming. (Matthew 24:36)"
BP: Is it possible for Jesus not to know this?
R: "Certainly as a human on earth it was possible for him not to know, but God the Father knows. But now? Jesus probably knows, but I cannot know for certain."

BP: You throw around "god the father knows" like you somehow know that he exists.

I do know that He exists.

BP: How can you be certain about this claim.

Faith.]

Let's review some definition: Faith-belief without evidence. Yet, you use belief without evidence to "know" that God exists. Right. Well, in that case, I know that Zeus exists and that fairies and ghosts are real. I have faith in them all!!!

Pau hana said:

PH: But are these absolutes necessarily "from God"? I could argue that these can be considered moral absolutes* for all human beings, even without the concept of God. That is, they are standards for everyone, and everyone would be better off by following them.

Sure, you could argue they can be considered absolutes for all human beings. I agree that everyone would be better off following these. But what about the rest of the human race? Would they agree with us? Most people live by a distorted view of the Golden Rule, that is, “do unto others AS they do unto you”, or worse, “do unto others BEFORE they do unto you”. Also, some people think that the “others” of the Golden Rule does not apply to everyone, i.e., certain race and cultures are conveniently excluded.

PH: Why? Because human society evolved that way.

I think history suggests otherwise.

PH: Because our brains happen to be hard-wired in that manner for increased survival. Do you think we could convince Bio prof of this?

I think Bio Prof is already convinced of this.

PH: So, once again, I think God escapes the scientific net even if one grants that some moral concepts are absolute.

Sure. But I’m not convinced that absolute moral concepts make sense in the absence of God. We have over 6 billion people (and opinions) on this planet, at what point do we define an absolute? All I have to do is read or watch the news and see how the rest of the world values something as seemingly fundamental as the Golden Rule.

(The obvious next subject, not addressed here, is that these two absolutes are much too general to guide any specific course of action. Different cults** may particularize them very differently to specific classes of actions. The question then becomes: Can we say that any of these more specific actions are moral or immoral without reference to a supernatural being?

Of course we can. Does that make them absolute?

PH: (Another subject, too lengthy for this forum, is why humans should need any kind of moral code...But we alone have a developed capability to model our own minds. This SRS allows us to look inside ourselves, to imagine things that may differ from the model of the PRS. For example, the SRS allows uas to imagine the concepts of good and evil. That is, the advent of the SRS exactly marks the Biblical Fall. Whoa! Don't get me started on this!)

Interesting stuff!

R: Sure. But I’m not convinced that absolute moral concepts make sense in the absence of God. We have over 6 billion people (and opinions) on this planet, at what point do we define an absolute? All I have to do is read or watch the news and see how the rest of the world values something as seemingly fundamental as the Golden Rule.

I reply: Well, we made up god and everything he stands for, so apparently all we have to do is implement really scary punishments like burning those who disobey the rules we set up, and god is superfluous. The heaven thing would be difficult to replicate though.