The Interface of Theism and Evolution: Notes

Atheist claims atheist bashing at evolutiong meetings.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/atheist-bashing-at-the-evolution-meetings/


A strong biblical critique of BiloLogos (Theists who are Evolutionists.)
http://creation.com/biologos-evolutionary-syncretism

What is Evolution? (or, what are the mulitple meanings of the concept.)

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."   Richard Dawkins http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (A Scientific dissent from Darwinism, signed by over 100 advanced degree scientists.)

Challenges to Evolution

Irreversible Complexity--Evolution Loses Another Round

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Scientists discovered something remarkable in a recent study—evolution can’t be reversed. In tracing the supposed evolution of a common protein, they introduced mutations to move the protein “backward” to each of its hypothetical transitional stages and discovered that each one wouldn’t work. What does that mean to the theory of evolution?

Objections to Macro Evolution

Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community.[4] Although most religions accept the occurrence of evolution, such as those advocating theistic evolution, some members still reject it in favor of creationism, the view that God created the world largely in its current form.[5] The resultant creation-evolution controversy has been a focal point of recent conflict between religion and science.

 In contrast to earlier objections to evolution that were either strictly scientific or explicitly religious, recent objections to evolution have frequently attempted to blur the distinction between the two. Such objections have often centered on undermining evolution's scientific basis, with the intent of combating the teaching of evolution as fact and opposing the spread of "atheistic materialism".[6] Modern creationism is characterized by movements such as Creation Science, neocreationism, and Intelligent Design which argue that the idea of life being directly "designed" by a God or intelligence is at least as scientific as evolutionary theory, and should therefore be taught in public schools. Their arguments against evolution have become widespread, and include objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. The scientific community, however, does not accept such objections as having any validity, citing detractors' misinterpretations of scientific method, evidence, and basic physical laws.[7]

Methods used to discredit those who oppose macro evolution

Confuse (or purposefully blurr distinctions between differing definitions of evolution)

State that there is no credible controversy: Implicit suggestion that anyone who questions the validity of evolution is functionally “unscientific”

Claim that all objections to evolution are religiously motivated.

Assume that religion is only credible when it operates outside the realm of observation.

'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction

'False' Gene Discovery Confirms Creation Prediction

Evo: What is Natural Selection

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of livings things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. (Stephen Myers)


What is meant by the term “Natural Selection” (and what explanatory power does it posses in the overall theory? In what major way is the concept limited?

In what sense is the idea of Natural Selection a “tautology” and why is natural selection (in itself) incapable of directing or advancing evolutionary change?

The Jordan observation of the distracting hand. In magic, a “prestidigitator” may ask you to watch his hands, as if his hands, at that moment, were the focal point of the magic maneuver. In most cases however, the “watch my hands” command is meant to take your eyes off of action elsewhere. In the case of evolution, it is my general sense, that attention is often placed on Natural Selection and removed from the far greater problem of random mutation (including the character and latitude of mutation.) My own thinking has led me to believe that Natural Selection is the most certain, indeed, the absolutely unquestionable component of evolutionary theory. It is also a limited concept, and has within itself, none of the generative (or creative) power associated with the evolutionary model.

Natural Selection is totally passive, it can only be said to “act” upon what is already there.

Matteo (Blog comment) The problem with Natural Selection is that is merely another name for death, and as such is a destructive force, not a constructive one. Its fans keep speaking of it as a probability enhancer or probability multiplier, making possible that which pure chance could never accomplish.


But this is akin to saying that the monkeys at the typewriters will more quickly produce Hamlet, provided you regularly massacre the majority of them.

Are evolution and a belief in God compatible?

You’d think that, for a website devoted to reconciling faith with the facts of science, the idea of Genesis as inspirational fiction would not be negotiable. If anything is absolutely, rock-bottom true, it’s that life evolved, beginning about 4 billion years ago, and that the creation myth of Genesis can’t be true.  Jerry Coyne, Commenting on BioLogos ( Francis Collins: A site given to theistic evolution)

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/485753-biologos-don%E2%80%99t-tell-people-that-genesis-is-fiction


Despite my initial links, there are really two questions here.  Is belief in God and evolution possible (or viable), and is such belief compatible with the Christian scriptures.  In as much as we can point to many individuals who embrace both the Christian faith and evolution, the possibilty of holding to both is a certainty.  "How" those who do so is another question.   It also very certain that Evolution and the Genesis account, as read (in a direct hisorical sense) are at odds.  The question then becomes, how do Christians who embrace both full bodied evolution and the authority of scriptures do so.  At minimum, they must read Genesis as something other than a direct historical account.  At max... they may just assume Genesis to be a soley human document.



A plea from a Christian (Rachel Held Evans) who embraces evolution, not to make evolution a Faith deal breaker.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/09/when_atheists_and_baptists_agree.html

Albert Mohler (head of the Southern Baptist Convention) respons:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/01/evolution-when-atheists-and-baptists-agree/

Rachel Evans responds to the response.  (I must add, while I am far from convinced of the the case for evolution) I deeply appreciate the tone or Rachel's Response.

http://rachelheldevans.com/al-mohler-response?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RachelHeldEvans+%28Rachel+Held+Evans+-+Blog+Posts%29








The Origin of the Species not only challenged prevailing scientific views but also shook the deepest roots of Western culture. Darwin’s view of life contrasted sharply with traditional beliefs of an Earth only a few thousand years old, populated by forms of life that been created at the beginning and remained unchanged ever since. Darwin’s book challenged a worldview that had been prevalent for centuries. (AP Biology 7th Ed, p439)



Challenge to religion is twofold.



1) Departed from the teaching of the Bible

2) Proposed adequate and comprehsive natural mechanisms, reducing or obliterating the need for a supernatural explanation KJ.





It is also irrelevant whether various religions differentiate between natural and supernatural. Once again, this is the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, people. Wake up. The teleological argument demands a diametrical opposition between "designed" and "evolved". The terms are mutually exclusive. Something evolved doesn't have a designer, and is therefore not designed. Something designed has a designer, and is therefore not evolved. Evolution, by definition, does not progress through the arbitrary whims of a designer. Design, by definition, does not occur through the blind forces of evolution.



--69.209.242.45 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



Hmmmm, although I agree with the sentiment, there is no diametric opposition between design and evolution. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of design, it merely makes it redundant as an explanatory factor. Design does not exclude evolution, it just says that design at some point in time was involved with the origin of certain features of life/the universe. -Superiority 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted all this. It may be that some of it could be reinstated (in modified form), but most of it was simply a matter of misunderstanding. A lot of that was terminology (e.g., to call it the argument from design is question begging, as was explained at the time of the change; premises can't be logically sound — they're either true or false, accepted or not accepted), but also of matters such as the relationship between the design argument and evolution (many people believe that design does indeed occur through evolution; in fact, that's the main position among non-fundamentalist Christians). The article needs work, but as a process, not as one person coming in, swearing and shouting at us, and making wholesale mistaken edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)



Excerpt from a Wikipedia discussion page (Teleological design). Comment posted August 2005








Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal.




ERNST MAYR: WHAT EVOLUTION IS

Introduction by Jared Diamond

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_index.html








Notre Dame ReSource: Evolution and Christianity

By: Dennis Brown

Date: July 18, 2005









A renowned philosopher from the University of Notre Dame supports recent comments by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that belief in evolution as accepted by some in science today may be incompatible with Christian beliefs.



“Cardinal Schönborn has it right,” said Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy and one of the world’s leading scholars in the philosophy of religion. “Evolution means different things to different people. Some of these things are perfectly consistent with Christian belief, but others are not.



“Some think of evolution as the theory of common ancestry: Any two living things share ancestors, so that we and the poison ivy in our back yard, as well as other living creatures, are cousins. This is surprising, but compatible with Christian belief.”



Problems arise, according to Plantinga, when “scientists and others take evolution to be a process that is wholly unguided and driven by chance, so that it is simply a matter of chance that rational creatures like us exist. This is not compatible with Christian belief, according to which God has intentionally created us human beings in His own image. He may have done so by using a process of evolution, but it isn’t by chance that we exist.”



Plantinga adds that the idea that “human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design, is also not a proper part of empirical science. How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance. That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.”



http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=12242



Evolution and Christianity

By: Dennis Brown

Date: July 18, 2005



Evolution and Belief in God (or in a God who is active in the creation of species) are incompatible:)

Only a tad more than one in four teachers really believes in evolution as scientists conceive of it: a naturalistic process undirected by divine beings.  Nearly one in two teachers thinks that humans evolved but that God guided the process.

Can we count those 48% of “guided-by-Godders” 0n our side?  I agree with P. Z.: the answer is NO.  Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings.  That’s not the way evolution works.   The graph labels these 48% as believers in intelligent design, and that’s exactly what they are, for they see God as nudging human evolution toward some preconceived goal.  We’re designed.  These people are creationists: selectivecreationists.

To count them as allies means we make company with those who accept evolution in a superficial sense but reject it in the deepest sense.  After all, the big revolution in thought wrought by Darwin was the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes.   When we cede human evolution to God, then, we abandon that revolution.  That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought. 

          Jerry Coyne  http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

From Baptist press   http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=21375

Mohler, a young-Earth creationist, says the Bible is clear about the way in which God created the earth in six days. He argues that Christianity and evolution offer opposing views of human origins.

“Given the human tendency toward inconsistency, there are people who will say they hold both positions,” Mohler writes. “But you cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant (me) model of evolutionary theory at the same time.

“... I believe the Bible is adequately clear about how God created the world, and that its most natural reading points to a six-day creation that included not just the animal and plant species but the earth itself.

“But there have always been Evangelicals who asserted that it might have taken longer. What they should not be asserting is the idea of God's having set the rules for evolution and then stepped back. And even less so, the model held by much of the scientific academy: of evolution as the result of a random process of mutation and selection."

What is Micro Evolution, or What is Macro Evolution

B: Special Evolution v General Evolution. (or Micro Evolution v Macro Evolution.


Q: What is Special Evolution, What is general Evolution, how do they differ?



"Special evolution" and "general evolution" are opposite processes. Specialization corresponds to configuring a computer program - turning off undesired features or loading optional modules. Generalization corresponds to writing code to implement new features.



*This may sound wacky, but it almost seems that the term Special evolution (a term used by Darwin) has fallen out of favor by use among evolutionists. I could find little on it on the web. It appears that the very distinction between special and general evolution add undesirable clarity to the debate, and is hence avoided.



Gould: (After talking about what he sees as incontrovertible arguments for observable evolution): “Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created “basic kinds,” and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dot to a cat or a monkey to a man.”

Gould is right: everyone agrees that micro evolution occurs, including creationist. Even creation-scientists concur, not because they “have tightened” their act,” but because their doctrine has always been that God created basic kinds, or types which subsequently diversified. The most famous example of creationist’s microevolution involves the descendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of the human species. The point in dispute in not whether microevolution happens, but whether it tells us anything important about the processes responsible for creating birds, insects, and trees in the first place. (DoT Philip E. Johnson, p 68)



Note: While “everyone” including all the young earth creationists (that I have read) embrace the reality of Micro-evolution, not all are willing to use the term.

Scientists who embrace the account of biblical creation have no problem with speciation, natural selection and change within a created kind, all observed (like the example above) to take place over time in nature. Yet, the sort of change which is observed in all examples to date of such ‘speciation’ entails a mere sorting or loss of genetic information, and is thus very different from the sort of change which is needed for molecules-to-man upwards evolution which implies an enormous gain of genetic information.

So changes observed here are really just variations (i.e. different species/breeds) within a kind, where new species/breeds can form fairly rapidly from other species/breeds (only within the limits of the information already in the gene pool of those kinds), but not a transition between kinds. Definitely not the sort of change required to, step by step, turn microbes into microbiologists. It is therefore quite misleading in this particular context to speak of “evolutionary” changes, as Van den Heever did.    

http://creation.com/church-leader-against-evolution

Q:  Why do some creationists avoid the term “Micro Evolution?”

a) because the believe that mere diversification (caused by genetic recombination and loss of information – and not by a gain in information, does not quality as evolution.

b) they do not want to validate the larger concept by using a word of ambiguous connotation.

Stats

Acceptance of evolutionary model by Christians with higher-ed (and who weresponded to a poll by the American Scientific Association) , is not significantly different from others with similar education, though engineers tend embrace total evolution at lower rates than do biologists.  For more stats:

http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/07/10/asa-origins-survey/

Evo: Theory, Fact, or working model

Evolutionary biology isn't a theory -- it's a pile of promissory notes for future theories, none of which has been redeemed since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species almost 150 years ago.   (William Dembski) http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm

Evolution (Critique) What's in a word

Evo: Critique: Science or Metaphysics?

Dallas Willard on the "limits" Evolution

"Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot — logically cannot! — be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operations always presuppose the prior existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, as well as of an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered (law-governed) fashion, to determine which ones are allowed to survive and reproduce. Let us quite generally state: any sort of evolution of order of any kind will always presuppose pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by it. It follows as a simple matter of logic that not all order evolved. Given the physical world — and however much of evolution it may or may not contain — there is or was some order in it which did not evolve. However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve, for it was the condition of any evolution at all occurring. We come here upon a logically insurpassable limit to what evolution, however it may be understood, can accomplish."

In what sense is evolution based on observation, in what sense is evolution anchored in metaphysics, or even religion?

Evo: Challenges (The problem of Gradualism)

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin.

What is Historical Science?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

Arguments for Christian Theism (Intro)

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/two-dozen.htm

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

What is the Kalam cosmological argument: (or who is William Lane Craig?)

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to both medieval Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most significantly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.[1] It has been revived in recent years most predominantly in the works of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.



William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument >

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


2. The universe began to exist.


3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

(Note this is actually the simplest form of the argument, Craig has formulated a larger 9 point argument, in which he reasons against the possibility of the space/time consisting of an eternal series of causal events.

The first question that most people ask when presented with this argument is “then what about God.” - but the statement is not, “Whatever exists must have a cause, but rather “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.” As God is eternal (and not characterized by an infinite series of finite elements” – The argument does not apply.


Criticism of the Argument:


By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/21/unsupported-premise-in-the-kalam-cosmological-argument.htm

Unsupported Premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument


Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.

Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":

What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false.“ He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter. ... // 

For the rest of Austin's comments
For Francois Tremblay's extended foundational critigue: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Craig.cfm )


The extended Kalam/Craig Cosmological Argument
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html
 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.




2.The universe began to exist.


     2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

     2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.

     2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

     2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

     2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:

    2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

    2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

    2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

    2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.

    2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.



3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.



4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a

personal Creator:

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:

4.21 The Creator is uncaused.

4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.22 The Creator is beginningless.

4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)

4.23 The Creator is changeless.

4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)

4.24 The Creator is immaterial.

4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator
is changeless. (4.23)

4.25 The Creator is timeless.

4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless.

4.26 The Creator is spaceless.

4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)

4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)

4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.

4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points
to intelligent design.


5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Resources (all over the map)

A review of Paul Davies
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_188-193.pdf


Dawkins on those who reject evolution:   (ignorant, wicked, duped, etc.)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html

Pro A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011&playnext=2

Commentos

This is not a post, but rather just a place for you to drop a note or leave any kind of comment not connected to a specific post.   All fond "hello's" welcome.

Climate Change

Ok, so you have the most important mission ever... TO SAVE HUMANKIND... You precipitate to Earth... (well, after waiting couple thousand of years)... and spend 30 years doing nothing waiting for your testicles to drop and for a beard to grow...


What the hell was the point of Jebus being born as a sh***ing pi**ing baby, then grown into a acne ridden teen... then working as an average carpenter (presumably he was nothing special at making furniture as nobody raved about it.) then spend a 10th of the life-time actually doing any work?

Would it not be more logical to be born a 20 year old and "hit the ground running?" All those years he could have been preaching a message of love... he did NOTHING.

P.S. Anybody care to estimate the value of a bench made by Jesus at an auction?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=291928

Where the arguments take us. (Video Roulette)

Satire:  Brilliant when it reiforces what we believe,  dishonest, manipulating, and stupid when it challenges what we believe.

Satire is strange, in that it must as a form, take what is weak in an argument, and make it weaker (or bolder) through exaggeration.   So satire is, in one sense, inherently dishonest.  It thrives in the market of distortion.  On the other hand, it has the unique ability to lshow us the weakness of a certain claim.

Science is Delusional  (strong satire,  wrong end)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89drdl0Ck7U&feature=fvw

The Implications of Naturalism: Notes

No Moral Absolutes:

From a discussion on a largely atheistic forum, in response to a question about relative morals.

http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=14687

Question: If you don't believe it God, then from where do you derive your moral code? If it really is moral relativism, then on what basis do you pass moral judgment on others? How can you reprimand Jenny McCarthy for what she does, if you can't say it's unethical? If you recognize your opinion as relativism and still force it upon others, how is your outlook not self-centered?

Reply 1:  Whether we feel good about it or not, all morals are "reasoned," by which I mean that they are created by intellectual means by and among people. We can pretend that morals come from a magical omnipotent being, but that doesn't make it so. And yes, sometimes morals are invented to serve the interests of their inventors. This is as true of religiously invented morals as of secular morals. As an example, look at the first four of the Ten Commandments (no other gods, no graven images, no taking God's name in vain, keep holy the sabbath), which serve no purpose beyond reinforcing the perpetuation of religious power. Atheists aren't less moral than believers; they're just more honest about where their morals come from.

Note: this seems a most credible critique of Christian morality...I know for example that I selectively choose which of the Christian scriptures I find binding...and it easy enought to dismiss in whole or in part, even thosee I do find binding.

Reply 10:  Relativism is ignorance. Morals are easy. Let me demonstrate morality right here.
me:

Hey, I don't like when people steal my shit. I also wouldn't like it if people killed me or the people I care about.

everyone else:

Hey, we also don't want our shit stolen, and we don't want to be killed.

us:

Lets all live together and agree not to kill each other and steal each others shit! In fact, we'll set up laws to punish people who do that! Ya! Is there anything else we agree on? Um... ya! We all value truth over lies, so lets make it illegal to spread lies! (Oh no Sylvia Brown and McCarthy!) Hey, lets set up some traffic laws in the city so that people can commute easier! omg what's he doing? is he creating a civil society right in front of our eyes, without invoking a god or divine edict? Hey, new idea! Our children might not have the same ideas as to what is right/wrong as we do. We should set up a system where the laws can be changed, so new situations can be reacted to, and the shifting moral zeitgeist can be addressed!

ID: Notes

A comment on Biologos about the real challenge for evolution(ists)   -- the mechanism
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-2a-the-whales-tale/

 

Agreed. Nothing in this article addresses the nitty-gritty about *how the necessary morphological changes were achieved*. It just beats the same old Biologos drum about common genetic features proving common ancestry. The issue isn’t common ancestry; it’s how one form is transformed into another. That’s what we know almost nothing about, and that’s where the scientific research should be focused. Sternberg is pleading for that, but the neo-Darwinians just don’t get it.

 

The problem is that, for the last 50 years or so, the education of engineers and the education of biologists has been radically divergent, and precisely what is needed for a serious theory of macroevolutionary change is the application of engineering insights to biology. I don’t know what it would take to get population geneticists to learn to think like engineers, but I do know that as long as traditional population geneticists are in charge of evolutionary theory, it will never be able to explain how anything occurred in a satisfactory way

Notes: Profiles in ID (Critical)

We have this going for us, however, which the evolutionary naturalists don’t, namely, the evidence and arguments are on our side. It’s therefore to our advantage to discuss intelligent design and naturalistic evolution on their merits. Conversely, the other side needs to delegitimate the debate between intelligent design and naturalistic evolution, casting intelligent design as a pseudoscience and characterizing its significance purely in political and religious terms. As a consequence, critics of intelligent design engage in all forms of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and demonization.~ William Dembski