NoGodBlog.com

I've always wanted to be the first to post a comment. So here goes.

I think a better term for intelligent design is "un-science" since it is clearly negative nature.

Hello - I wanted to make a point after reading an article in the LA times about Atheists organizing. I don't know really follow Atheism, as I consider myself Agnostic, but it seems to me Agnostics have a similar problem as Atheists as we do not necessary run to our local churches to profess a faith in anything. That said - Here's my point:
I've always thought how awful it is that since I don't go to church, I don't have a community of people to share my life with. I also find it disheartening trying to figure out how to give my children outside influence on moral issues. Atheists/Agnostics should unite and form organizations not unlike churches in every city. Community centers for the family. There's more: Perhaps there should also be some set of moral beliefs published. Be good to each other - type stuff, not because you'll go to hell, but because thats the way to be. (I'll leave the moral philosophy of this to you folks.) Point is - Perhaps die-hard christians wouldn't be so afraid of atheists if they knew that the vast majority have a moral code they live by as well. Just a thought - Good Luck!

Man created God as a way to stop all the annoying questions.

So much of what used to be explained by "God" or "the word of God" has now been explained by science. It turns out that a lot of what was explained by "God" was completely erroneus, and those who trusted in the "god" scenario eventually had to alter their beliefs..."if the Earth really is spherical, then God must have made it that way and had a reason for not making it obvious to us". It's still explained by God's "mysterious ways", and the scientist was directed by God, knowingly or not, to make the discovery.

What hath God wrought?

I don't understand how one creates experiments designed to test intelligent design. Where does it go? Is it not simply a search for the designer, or "God"?

Why is the Earth/ planets Round?

I think "Google" is god, they have the answer to everything!!

How about un-intelligent design. MS Spina bifida tuberculosis, My favorite,Polio,created by god cured by man. The vaccine is currently opposed by third world nations in Africa.Fundamentalist nations that is.

I think creation "science" is one of the stupidest things humankind believes in. I feel so sorry for those poor kids in the state of Kanas who have to learn it from their science teacher. I'm sorry, but the bible and other stories from mythology have NO place in Mr. Frink's biology class! (nor in a laboratory, for that matter.) Evolution is, in fact, science. It's been going on for millions of years and continues today. It doesn't matter which theory is more horrible (creationists, er, sheep like to mention that the nazis used Darwin's teachings to justify the holocaust) if something is truth then its truth! Unless someone can scientifically disprove evolution then I will change my mind, but until then I'm behind Darwin 100%.

Im embarrassed to be a kansan. That the school board of all people could be in favor of brainwashing kids is sickening. Yes, it is brainwashing to replace science with myth. You can brainwash your own kids at your own home on your own time, thats your right, but don't brainwash my kids, keep your twisted religious beliefs to yourselves. The creationists on the school board probably wont be really happy until the science is completely removed from education and the constitution is replaced with their bible.

NYD
I'm going to get a taste of kansa next week when i go to visit my friend who recently moved there from NC. Her husband is stationed at Ft. Riley and is being deployed (again) to Irag in Nov. He has told me how stupid the kansas school systems are, and i've read about it. I should be hearing a lot more, since my friend will be employed by them come August.
Other than being a Kansan, I second your emotions!

Karen, bring your ear-plugs and buy some blinders (the kind used on horses) ... just kidding, I hope you have a great time while you are in kansas, try to unconvert as many people as you can while on your visit we need help out here in the boon-docks. This is the front-lines in the war against religious persecution.

As posted earlier "don't brainwash my kids" It was a figure of speech, I don't have kids. I should have worded it differently

Bye for now my friends, have a great day. If there isn't enough love in the world lets make more of it. hahaha. Make love not war.

God or no god....Evolution is a fact. What happened before the "Big Bang" no one knows. The simple explanation is that there is no god and the basic elements that make up the universe are eternal.

Religion is myth to be sure. Mythology isn't a bad thing. The problem is when myths are taken literally. After that, when the literal is proven to be false(as it assuredly will be) one throws the baby out with the bath water. The truth being told by the myth gets discarded when the literal truth is thrown out. One can and will go insane or do irrational things if the literal interpretation of the myth gets carried too far.

I'm not necessarily defending religion. I think religion should be discarded to the degree that people take the myths literally. Personally, I've seen and heard so much of religion that I would be happy if it did disappear completely. That, however, isn't practical.

Religion used to be the domain of the intellectual elite in a society. It was the epitome of knowledge and the understanding of how the world worked and of our place in it.

Hundreds of years ago, mankind discovered a better way of understanding. Science, logic, reason. Not just a personal use of these tools but a collective body (peer review). Science is not a new religion! It is a replacement for religion! It doesn't have all the answers but it provides the tools for discovering them.

Some would say that religion answers questions that science can't even ask. Fine, but science will continue to push back the curtain of religion(the wizard of oz) and make life better in the process primarily because you will have to take responsibility and find the (courage, heart, intelligence) for yourself!

Speaking of Kansas, has anyone here read "Elmer Gantry"? I finished it a few weeks back and was amazed at how relevant the novel is today. Sinclair Lewis wrote it more than 70 years ago. As part of the research process, he was invited to stay in Kansas and survey the religious scene. In addition to attending different church services, he met weekly with a group of religious leaders and enjoyed confounding them with theological questions that exposed the contradictions of their beliefs.

Evolution has minor mention in the book, but I think the title character offers a good take on the creationist mindset. Elmer Gantry is used to being the big man on campus, and while he doesn't want to buckle down for much studying, he still wants to be an authority. Fundamentalist religion allows him to pick and choose what sounds good, and cobble it together in sermons that move the masses and support his preacher's high.

I can certainly identify with the character... and one of the scary points of the book ties in well with evolution. It isn't about "survival of the fittest," but simply about survival of the survivors -- those who are fit enough to reproduce. In the realm of culture, fundamentalist Christianity is fit, even if it's utterly wrong or ridiculous. It perpetuates itself.

onetimer said: "...Atheists/Agnostics should unite and form organizations not unlike churches in every city. Community centers for the family. There's more: Perhaps there should also be some set of moral beliefs published..."


No there should not! Here's why:

Anything that would be described as atheist beliefs would be very misleading. Atheism (and agnosticism for that matter) is a recognition of being without belief or in the case of agnosticism, that belief isn't necessary. Atheism/ag. is a statement that we don't believe because belief isn't necessary when we have reason.

If you as an individual are having trouble discovering the morality of a specific situation, you need to investigate. Ask questions. Why is it considered right to do one thing and wrong to do another? If you are having trouble discovering the answers then that becomes your personal challenge. It could take a lifetime or you may never find the answers. The point is you are taking responsibility for your life. Think for yourself. Don't accept the groupthink.

If you long for connection to other people there are community groups of every description. People (children especially), learn from observation, not so much from teaching. Behaving in a moral way is something that is learned by being around people who behave in a moral way! Find a group of people that you enjoy being around, that share common interests. I'd rather join a community band than a church group. My children will learn more from being around those people than I could ever hope to impart to them from teaching them the dogma of a belief system.

Jim

Would you consider our Goverment to be a belief system?

You make a good strong point.

Beliefs and Morals are personal issues.

Our Government is our belief system.

But developing a system might help. It could be useful to those who know no other answer other than "god"

Let them see the light to, analytical thinking, reasoning, critical thinking, and plain thinking for themselves.

Agnostics are damn fence-sitters.

There is *nothing* wrong with the religious refusing to believe in evolution.

What is wrong is allowing the non-believers to reap the benefits of applied natural selection - that is they should be denied all antibiotics and vaccines. Don't believe it works? Die!

Same for the agnostics: not sure it works? You make up your mind or you can die, too.

If we simply pass a law forbidding the application of inconsistent belief - "Congress shall make no law abridging ... freedom of religion" well, we can't very well make the non-believers take medicine that denies their faith when it works, no can we?

I'd say we are about 40 years out from the end of fundies as they line up to die for their belief. One good case of diptheria in church and the end time is nigh.

While we're at it, we ought to admit that Christianity is just a death cult. Give them the freedom of expression that the Constitution demands!

Oh, and did I mention that agnostics are worthless fence-sitters who can't decide the time of day? Agnostics are WORSE than fundies because they COULD BE fundies - once they make up ther freakin' minds!

Evolution, I believe it is possible to have evolved.

I do not buy the adam and eve story.

How do we get the diffrent races?

The reason I am considering evangelical atheism is to promote the idea of life without God and religion, in order to counter the damage done by those who believe in such things.

I also need some money. There's a lot of doubt out there to exploit, and there is also comfort to sell in the form of knowing that we can't know. Religions survive because their adherents pay money to the cause. If this did not happen, the concept of God might have been forgotten years ago.

I can see myself being the Elmer Gantry of atheism, and using it to enrich myself while furthering the cause of common sense. I'm not sure we should just sit around and wait for others to wake up. It's like a lot of things...your neighbor is waiting for you to be the first, then they will follow.

I never read the book, but Burt Lancaster is excellent in the movie...

I've never understood why atheists are so hard on agnostics. It's not that agnostics "haven't made up their minds", it's just that agnostics know that no one can say with absolute certainty that there is or isn't a God. If they could, the God question would be moot.

Atheists and agnostics should be allies against the forces of religion that continue to decieve the world.

rope

pack up the babies and grab the old ladies and everyone goes

To Brother Rope's Travelin' Salvation Show

!!!!

ARL,

Because those of us who have taken a firm stand in atheism view agnostics as wishy-washy.

the trouble is Darrow the superstitious amongst us will always use the products of scientific research to heal themselves and kill others. If they want to live in the past and keep women "under" their control, they should only be allowed to pray for a cure and use sticks to fight with. That way they will die out very quickly as the Darwin Awards web site shows.
By the way, WHY do women like/enjoy being below us men in the fundies scheme of things?

Every agnostic is a potential atheist, much more so than any theist.

Can the true athiest not accept the infintismal possibility of God? If a person accepts any percentage of possibility, does that make him an agnostic. Can't a person come to the conclusion that the possibility is so low as to not warrant belief? Or must the atheist deny God as a absolute impossibility?

I mean, there's wishy-washy, and then there's skeptical common sense. If atheism is the absence of belief in God, then one could accept the possibility, but not believe that the concept has validity.

I find that the agnostic viewpoint makes sense in that there is no way of knowing everything for sure. However, I do not believe that God exists. Am I atheist, agnostic, or something in between?

i am a 100 percent certain non-believer and here is my basic logic:

If there was an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, then it should be better by far in all respects than the rest of us "mortals". as a parent and human being i would never consider damning my own children or fellow human to eternal life in hell for not worshipping me or acccepting me as their saviour.

if i wouldn't do it (and i suspect most earthlings wouldn't either) then how can a supposedly superior being take such a position? for me there can be no such god who i view as beneath my own morals and character.

Right, although I'm an atheist I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a god or gods may exist.You cannot prove that there is no god. But you can't prove that one exists either.
I do think that it's unreasonable to believe that the Bible is the literal word of a god or that religion is not just an invention of humans. You can prove that Evolution is factual since the evidence is abundant.
Let's leave the absolutes and name calling to the religious fundamentalists.

flanonblvr, You're describing the bible god. If there were an all knowing, good god of love then all would be saved. But with all the suffering in the world we're faced with three choices;
1)God is evil.
2)God is incompetent.
3)There is no god.
The simplest explanation to me is that there is no god.

If most Americans are theists in name, are they really theists in practice? I'm not an atheist because I don't BELIEVE in a god... I'm an atheist because no god has ever been present in my life. If I've experienced euphoria, I've recognized it as euphoria.

Theism, as opposed to deism, involves a personal god -- one that becomes involved in one's life. If the label "theism" is assigned according to BELIEF, then most Americans are theists -- they act AS IF they believe in a god. If the label is assigned according to PROOF, then most Americans are atheists -- they are, by definition, without a personal god. Their euphoria is just euphoria, however much they yearn for it to be something more.

I'd go to ARL's atheistic tent revival for the music and the speaking in tongues.

Yeah, it sounds a little like %&+*&$@(!

Ahm... sorry, did the Creator :-) of this message board not want to discuss creationism vs. science? As I live in Europe (but planning to cross the pond) I am somewhat underinformed about these theories. What is the percentage of Americans really believing in that? Do Creationists now have some sort of theory they defend in toto? (I've heard about 6000 y old earths associated with speed-of-light-changes, and earths that stop rotating for a while because some god didn't want it to get too dark during a massacre or war...associated with ...ahm, what?). If so, where's a good overview? Do creationists have peer-reviewed journals?

Well, and here maybe something else... in the light of the ever growing religious fanatism I'm sure you are all opposed to; how do you prevent Atheism going down the same road- becoming a religion?

If god is all powerful then why couldn't (he/she) create the world instantly. Maybe the heavens are unionized and there was a labor strike. Or perhaps gods parents made (him/her) start over a few trillion times. Why would god pick a week anyway thats a time frame made up by man. If god were only more like chef Emerill,, BAM !!!! Earth. Then after creating earth god would say mom can i go out and play. If we are created in his image then (he/she) is like us.

"If we are dumb, the God is dumb..."

- Frank Zappa

73 - How does an atheist movement grow without reaching out to the doubters? Since Buddhism is a recognized "no god" religion, why couldn't athiesm also organize into a tax-free religious entity?

After all, don't the religous also accuse the atheist of having faith in non-belief?

Getting more folks on our side would lead to more atheists in business and government, and more common sense in this world. If we have to start a "religion" to do it, I'm for it.

The religion would simply base it's philosophy on atheism. The teachings would be in constant with non-belief. Common sense and reality would be in, fantasy and God would be out.

Or, maybe I'll just open a theater in Branson. I'll do a stage production of Frank Zappa's "You Are What You Is".

!

NYD

Good points! ;-)

NYD

Maybe Emerill caused the big bang!

Even though buddism has no god belief buddists worship budda as though he was a god, praying to him etc. I would hate to see atheists worshiping a charismatic leader. We don't need leaders if every one of us stands up for what we believe in,
Anyway if everyone in the world was atheist there would still be serial killers, rapists etc. Humans have written laws for almost everthing, the "good books" just scratch the surface. If somebody wants to worship the unknown I say as long as you obeys the laws let freedom reign

73
If you want to study the creationist species when you hop the pond, you might want to start with Kansas. They actually mandate the teaching of their bunk in the schools there!

I'm befuddled as to why natural selection hasn't already eradicated the pesky, virulent lot of creationists. Anyone have any ideas?

Karen: hehe Chef worship the new religion. A big spread of good food would make it easier to listen to the message, hahahahaha hehe. Praise the chef for his new creation, BAM
He can sure cook. It all make sense now living things eat, god cooks,
the big BAM started the ball rolling.
LMAO

NYD

Not to mention, he communicates with us freely through the sub-god of television. He doesn't hide unseen. And when we hear BAM! we KNOW it's a good thing!
We'll let the creatonists do the dishes.

To any creationists

I'm interested in hearing just HOW any of you thinks this creation thing happened. Do you think Genesis is a parable or literal. Do you have a different explanation?

It is ironic that the ingredients to BAM are known only to the Emerill god. We need to know what BAM is. He says it is spice and it looks a lot like cayenne pepper but you know how tricky gods are, it could be a mind control drug???

NYD

Or maybe the "spice" is really just so much fairy dust, and the real mind control is just in his saying "BAM!"

Did Adam and eve have belly buttons?

I would like to hear the creationist view on intelligent design. Also did god say "BAM" after he creating us?

Hey Frank Z.-
I'm definately not saying we should not reach out to other people requesting tangible or mathematical proof for what they are theorizing about, whatever it is.
However, sometimes they just seem to require something like a god, I suppose (mostly the less intelligent, but also admirable and hard-working people). I just can't get myself to syphon them in the easy logic (like: omniscient and all-powerful gods don't need being worshipped and such...). I'm only doing this to them if I believe it helps breaking bonds between them and others that exploit them on the basis of their beliefs or if they seem to exploit themselves to the point of self-denial (e.g. some religious gays in their teenage years...). People sometimes don't like to think for themselves, not everyone wants to be empowered.
Religion conveys power, the destruction of such believes does as well. To distinguish atheism (as I see it) positively from religions, I think it would be wise to avoid power. I think "reaching out" should be done by making people think for themselves. Where there is a mind, there is doubt, and power cannot easily be abused. To that end, doubts need to be trained. It is obviously impossible to prove the existance of a god, but there is no proof either that there is nothing (of any undefined form) outside of it (of what?). Are you a believer?
Now in terms of philosophy, there can't be extensive ones that are always useful, so why rally people around it? How about: "always try to do the right thing"?
On the other hand, I haven't ever suffered directly from organised religious bullshit myself (in Cental Europe), thus I might not have attained the required level of frustration to get myself organized with like-minded people. I don't know, maybe it's the right thing to do.

Karen:
Your question is brilliant I never thought of that.

karen:

It’s kinda difficult to want to engage in a polite debate with someone who apparently wants, “natural selection [to] eradicate the pesky, virulent lot of creationists.” If that’s the case, then why did you come to this thread?

73 - I see what you are saying, but there's no money in it!

My idea of the aethist "church" would be more of a place to comfort those in doubt about God and religion, and to give them solace that their doubts are not misplaced. Earth knows there is plenty of atheist literature from which to draw the cure. Don't forget to visit the gift shop.

Hey, did God use the DNA from Adam's rib to make Eve? Are they technically twins?

karen: the reason may be birth-control-related... :-)

On the other hand, in my critical eyes, evolution theory was not sufficiently well explained on the mechanistic level before Chicago's Sue Lindquist (Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution.
Nature. 1998 Nov 26;396(6709):336-42.) got her work out (where she described how mutations can be "stored" in a genome). Before, it was more seeing-believing than seeing alone. I don't think Bio-Creationists that are University-trained can resist the logic any longer. Give it another 4 years. Do they still have many Biologists/Creationists out there?

jcc
I came here because rope and NYD were here to talk to and nothing else was going on. And i had some questions.
And you are certainly welcome to your creationist or ID views as long as you don't try to push them into the public schools. That is how theists in general become pesky and virulent; they decide they are above the law and want to force their ways on others. Believe what you wish. Just do it privately and we'll all do the same.

The preacher Dr. Kennedy was talking this morning about how this country was founded by christians and talkling about wiping out secularism.
Thats everyone who isn't into religion. Thems fighting words if you ask me. He didnt mention burning atheists at the stake in early american colonies but i'm sure if the law allowed it he would have no problem burning atheists, and anyone else that didn't have his beliefs.

A rope leash- Agreed, why not...

god must have taken out the Y-chromosome (of a rib-preparation- difficult to do- congrats, god!) and doubled the X or extracted it from another Cell, then he did some god-ish things to grow Eve (maybe Adam got pregnant?) involving in vitro fertilization.

Furthermore, he must have given them a brilliant dna repair mechanism so that they could live their hundreds of years. (the world would be happy if you'd find it, dear creationist scientists- would be a nice cure for cancer).

jcc: I personally welcome any beliefs on this forum, this is a free and open forum for discussion and debate. Nobody should get personal, only ideas should be questioned not somebodys character.
I enjoy reading your views and although I don't neccessarily agree, I will listen. Generally christians think atheist are evil and thats not right either.

Not all Agnostics are permanent fence-sitters. I don't see anything wrong with being an Agnostic on a temporary basis. I used to be one. But I was never content to remain such. I was determined to find an answer, one way or the other. I wasn't sure if God (or just any god) existed, but I wasn't certain about Atheism either, so I referred to myself as an Agnostic. I just couldn't remain in a permanent state of doubt, of "we'll never know," but I can understand if someone stays an Agnostic for a long period of time. Reaching the conclusion of Atheism took a long time for me, too.

Im logging out but before I go I would like to say I love you all. Have a great day and a better tommorrow. And rest well tonight because you are special.
All of you!!

I know that evolution, or something very like it happened because we are all here. All species use the same DNAand the family trees all trace back to the same p;ace somewhere in a pond a inorgannic molecule made a molecule of dna and the race was on.

I am fairly active in advertising atheism as an alternative to religions and that there are lots of good moral lessons in the secular press, Mark Twain - "Tom Sawyer, Huckelberry Finn, Lewis Carrol.

As to someone's earlier question of why women can agree with fundamentalism: I've met enough of these women to know the answer. One of the many reasons people believe in God and the Bible is because they don't want to have to think. The Bible contains everything these people need to know, so they never have to really think for themselves or think beyond that.

Now add to that having another human being who will go an extra step and do your thinking for you, instructing you in what's best for you, and taking care of you. You don't have to think, you don't have to have a job (except for raising the kids), and you don't even have to try to interpret or understand the Bible for yourself. You have a husband who will take care of all these things for you. For someone who has given up on being rational and thinking for themselves anyway, this is a comfortable position. Their attitude is, "I may not always agree with my husband, but I obey him anyway because I know he's only doing what he feels is best for me and for us, and I can't complain, because he's taking care of me." This loss of freedom sounds terrible to any rational person, but to a person of faith, obeying a husband is a small price to pay for the "benefits" they perceive.

Also, these women see themselves as having a role to fulfill. Their role is to raise the kids, take care of the house, back up the husband, etc. and as long as they are accomplishing these things, fulfilling their Biblically-defined role, they are happy.

Right on, Dag...

73-

I've always envisioned the creation of Eve as a sort of giant-hand from the sky with some magic sparklies floating is the air as Eve is formed.

Adam's pregnacy, I can honestly say, never occured to me...

notyourdaddy:

Speaking personally, I don’t believe atheists are evil. I think they are misguided and wrong. I also believe what is being done on atheists' behalf by the ACLU to eradicate Chrisitans right to the free exercise of their faith in the public square is not only unconstitutional, but can be (for lack of a better word) down-right evil in it’s intent.

I think a set of moral guidelines for Atheism *is* appropriate, as long as said guidelines are based on reason, and as long as they are just that--guidelines (not commandments). As long as our attitude is not "Follow all of these rules--or else!" and we still allow some room for disagreements, and the guidelines remain just general good concepts "don't harm others," etc., then I see nothing wrong with this. The goal of creating these moral guidelines should be correcting the negative, a-moral stereotype that surrounds Atheism, not blind obedience by every Atheist to our set of commandments.

jcc-
what is ACLU (sorry, I'm European...)

karen:

Saying that Creationists think they are above the law is quite the opposite of what is actually happening. It’s the evolutionist who are behaving as such by demanding ONLY evolution be taught in spite of its scientific inadequacies, unproven assumptions and lack of evidence (i.e. see my exchange with escher in the “Q & A: Does any God exist?” thread)

Is the premise of evolution so precarious that IT can’t be subject to the same scrutiny in public schools as its adherents apply to ID?

The biggest reason Christians disagree with evolution and oppose it so vehemently revolves around one word: theory. The first thing any religious person will say when you bring up evolution is "It's only a theory." Thanks to the lack of good science education in the schools, so few people really understand the scientific method. They have no idea what is required for a hypothesis to attain the status of "theory." It takes a lot for an idea to even come that far, but too many people know only of the common, everyday use of the word. To most people, a theory is some vague, sketchy notion. They don't know that in the realm of science, a theory means so much more. When discussing evolution with theists, I always call it the *idea* of evolution. I still haven't changed anyone's mind on the subject, but at least I'm avoiding the word that theists have such a problem with.

atheist73:

The American Civil Liberties Union.

anyone else who knows what ACLU is? (atheist crumpled lovers unit?, anarchist club of lumpy usurpators?)

sorry..., o.k. thank you.

I am terribly disturbed by the Kansas school board including "creationism" in their science curriculum. I can only imagine what the collegiate community must think of this.

This is just a hypothesis but...

It is my belief that many Americans are simply lazy - especially when it comes to education. I live in rural Nebraska and I discovered that many of the people I encounter put very little stock in education, probably because they themselves have very little education.

I think it is this laziness that allows people to simply take what they are fed and never decide for themselves. The idea that a supernatural being simply snapped its fingers and POOF! there was everything, is a much simpler concept than the abstract concepts involved in evolution. Why learn the truth when the myth you’re fed is satisfying enough?

For me, the theory of evolution makes sense. It provides solutions to questions that do not require the involvement of the supernatural. We are witness to the processes of evolution every day. Much of modern medicine uses these processes to combat disease. Yet, for many, it's just easier to believe - without any shred of testable poof - in a concept that is in contradiction to what we all see everyday. And this “faith” is simply an excuse for laziness.

Not a single person I have ever spoken with here in rural Nebraska has ever read "The Origin of Species", yet they are the first do deny it's theories. And what absurdly little they know - or think they know about Darwin's theories - is based on misinformation, half-baked Discovery Channel programs and utter falsehoods.

If they believe a God is responsible – and more specifically, their God is responsible - for the creation of everything, then there is one simple task they must perform before presenting their theory in class room as a plausible one (as the rest of the scientific community is required to do before a theory can be taken seriously)...

Show me proof – any proof.

Dagny:

As I tried to point out to escher in the other thread, for years, I thought evolution was a plausible premise that was adequately supported by scientific evidence. It wasn’t until after I finally decided to try as objectively as I could to investigate its assumptions and explanations for lack of evidence that I realized that it simply can’t explain the advent of, and diversity of life on earth. Some mechanism OTHER than natural selection has/had to be at work to explain life as we know it.

Hey JCC, sorry to ask but why exactly do you consider
-DNA altering processes leading to mutations or acquisition of new genetic material through transgenesis
-storage of these mutations/transgenes
-expression of a new (set of) gene(s)
-selection for a fitter mutant
-better reproduction of the fitter mutant
inadequate as a model for the design of animals? True, it is impossible to track every mutation back to the reason that caused it (since there are so many) but with some it works quite well. (Did you know, about 25% of our genome comes from viruses?)

Origin of species is now primarily a book with historical value (as is the Watson-Crick paper on the structure of DNA). We have gone a bit further in Molecular Biology. Along this line, I hope Creationists are reading the "other side" as well.

The second question would be, which model do you have? Does it explain (explanation = mechanism, molecular data... etc.) more effects?

Thirdly, I agree that you should by no means be prevented to live up to your christianity if this way of living suits you better. It's only important that you chose it yourself and understand what you are doing, I think.

jcc,

I never said I agree 100% with evolution ;-) I've studied it as much as my time and finances will allow (not nearly as much as I would like) and have concluded that it's the most reasonable explanation we have--so far. I was merely explaining why most (not all) of the Christians I've seen tend to disagree with it. I'm aware that although it is a scientific theory, it currently has its holes/flaws, and until these are resolved I can't totally agree with it.

As for what gets taught in the schools, evolution is still science. Only science, which uses the scientific method, should be taught in science classes. Faith should not be taught in public schools, except in the context of world history or a class where one studies the many different religious cultures of the world.

atheist73:

I’m not arguing that DNA isn’t subject to mutation. I am arguing that evolution cannot adequately explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (see my rebuttal to escher on Gould’s Punctuated equilibrium theory in the “Q & A: Does any God exist?” thread).

i find some of the comments about creating a club, society, or "religion" for atheism interesting as i have felt this way as well. wouldn't it be nice to be able to meet others of similar belief and discuss openly without starting arguments or hurting the feelings of the theists? or use our numbers for the greater good of others?

but then reality sets in and i realize that most of us are very individualistic and don't follow the crowd just because it's easier. so a society of us may be quite an unruly bunch. Religion is most successful when sheep are involved and we are not that.

atheist73:

In reference to evolution theory correctly using the scientific method, again see my exchange with escher on that other thread.

That was until 1998 - not anymore. You can "store" mutations now (It's been called "the revolution in evolution". See Sue Lindquists paper I cited above, in fact I only got "converted" with that paper.) There's no need for a detectable amount of transitional forms anymore. I agree that Evolutionary Biologists have often big names for their theories although it comes down to simple mechanisms, of which Lindquist found one. The paper is not as popular as it should be, even among biologists.

atheist73:

Anything is possible, but (as I’ve asked so many times before on this blog) does that offer a plausible explanation for the “Cambrian explosion?”

jcc:
If truth be told, I don't know. I don't even know how I would have to calculate that now, with that new mutation-storage mechanism, and whether I would have to propose more of that kind and some ugly viruses to boot to get a decent probablity (entirely possible). I think this will need a bit of time for the Evolutionary Biologists to figure out. I see that possiblity now, however.
But again, what caused the Cambrian Explosion in your model?

Dagny said ..."The goal of creating these moral guidelines should be correcting the negative, a-moral stereotype that surrounds Atheism, not blind obedience by every Atheist to our set of commandments."

Does that mean I should stop chiseling?

It would not matter to the atheist church if a member came or went.

"Go forth, and doubt no more, but please consider leaving a donation on your way out...or perhaps you'd like to visit the gift shop for a fine memento..."

atheist73:

That’s just it. Currently, science is at an utter loss to explain the Cambrian explosion. But when considering the big-bang model and the 41 characteristics (that I posted on that other thread) that indicate a precise “fine-tuning” of the universe in order for life to exist, it is not anti-intellectual to consider a Creator.

I just spent some time at the Discovery Institutes website.

I'm no more informed now than I was before. Except that I confirmed my suspicions that they are a statistical research institute, They do't actually do the research but they use research to prove their side of the Idea. They say their goals are to harmonize science with theism (paraphrased).

They do not do science. They are not in the trenches of evolution. But they do have their own ideas on the origins of the earth.

It's funny how all over the world real scientists are contributing to the study of evolution. And the institute is not agreeing. you'd think that if their idea was so good and clear that scientists from around the world would indeed join them or at least agree with the science that the institute practises.

When you review the discovery site note that they have their hands in everything inluding politics. Apparently they want to harmonize that also. Especially read the csc area of the site and the 5 truths.

Every day in the real world new discoveries are made by some one working on an idea. An idea that came from their owwn unique thoughts. Why shouldnt they. Mankind is now able to direct his/her own evolution. And that terrifies theose folks at the Discovery Institute. If they had their way the limits of research would be in verificaton of bible stories.(stories is the operative word).

They are truly a disappointing bunch. They do not have the tenacity to do their own real research. These are the laziest people any educational system can provide and are in fact a burden on our society. JIM P.S. no church needed. Freedom is like that.

jcc:

Who sais it was anti-intellectual? Just defend your model (or a good part of it) IN TOTO and it's intellectual enough for a model. Predict something with it, prove it if you can experimentally, otherwise find good arguments.

I think Evolutionary Biologists have a difficult stand there, with almost no decent DNA left from then. I've read your shoot-out with Escher on the Cambrian Explosion and I agree with you that evolution of multicellular organisms (without a storage model) appeared almost unthinkable and is difficult to defend scientifically on some levels. (Although of course for prokaryotes it did work well...)

Now the model for multi-cellular organisms is starting to be appealing, since storage gives us a possibilty to check when (time of ingress of hsp-like genes into populations?) and how (mechanism). This is now something that can be checked, but it will take time.

By the way, isolated fruit fly populations (wild-types in different labs) do differ pretty much (now almost 4% in non-coding regions), in a few hundred years we'll know whether the different genotypes do result in animals that cannot be crossed anymore... as much to a decent controlled experimental proof for evolution.)

Of course, there are still loads of gaping holes in the model from particle physics to the first existing live-form or reproducing molecule (we think it's RNA, but who knows...)and further on.

Incidentally -you being a particle physicist- are you so sure that the magnitues of the 41 constants from "strong nuclear constant" down to the magnitude of "H's uncertainty" are not interdependant, or that there were not many previous universes?
Furthermore, life as we know it is only one form of organisation, it might have found a way to exist under completely different conditions (take other polymers instead of DNA or proteins- get 2D- whatever...)- which makes the latter an anthropocentric argument.

To conclude my argument, I'd just like to stress that if you attack the models of the making of the biological world, that is a good idea. But if you want creationist models be thought at school, you should defend it IN TOTO and provide satisfying models for a 6000 y old earth, with which they have had difficulties far beyond the Cambrian Explosion problem for Evolutionary Biologists.

atheist73, you shouldnt get suckered in by the misdirection of words. There was no "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record. There is EVIDENCE of a huge diversity of life forms living at this time. But this does NOT translate into an "explosion" by any stretch of a thoughtful persons imagination. It was a misapplied term by early archeologists who had seen nothing like it before. Thus, sorting through the Burgess Shales it appeared that life exploded onto the Earth in one almighty "explosion". The truth is far more mundane and is better overlooked if you are of a superstitious bent.
Life began as single cell organisms and they do not preserve their forms after death but decay to nothing. The amounts of fossil evidence is slim in the extreme, most "fossils" on show are in fact facsimiles made from fibreglass with the "missing" bits made to fill the gaps. The total amount of human fossils would easily fit into the back of a pickup. For investigators of human history its not much to go on, but those who try to make genuine assumptions based on the evidence, just love that word, must be wrong if not in the whole "Theory" but in the detail now and again is a given. But when somebody deliberately misleads by their use of easily quoted headlines then they should be shown the evidence that destoys the basic misconceptions they have about the planet we are all living for a short time on. As J K Galbraith said "The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." Let the superstitious frighten each other with "Theories" but let those who can think for themselves evaluate the bits of information they hear or see, that they actually understand and apply it to the knowledge base already held and see if it changes the theory or reinforces it. Thats been the human way since the year dot, build on experience and climb up from the ghosts of the past, just leave those superstitious non-thinkers behind. Evolution will take care of them. I must put a great thank you to Bill Bryson for writing a book that everone can understand if they really want to know just about everthing that matters to us all and to Dave for giving us a place to "spout off" whether we are right or wrong.

Corr: taught instead of thought...

jaraw-
guess I'll have to look at your book.

Oh dear... sandman's coming to town (It's 1:50 a.m. here) and I wish you all a happy live (with god, or without her/him/them) in whatever (atheist/ christian/ muslim/ satanist) church or none you chose to be. Let's just keep thinking (and doubting) and at least we'll make our own mistakes, perhaps even progress and can't be called sheeps.

jcc, if you are a creationist scientist indeed -my compliments, you're increasing the fitness of our atheist blog- population. hope you are happy (and start to defend your theories in toto, if you have time...). I'll have a look at the new evolutionary biology books or review articles meanwhile, now feeling thoroughly underinformed.

cheers everyone

jcc

About giving ID or creationism classroom time...

There's this thing called Separation of Church and State. Evolution is science and has a place in the classroom. ID and creationism are based on faith and belong in places of faith or in your home. Of course you may teach it to your heart's content in a PRIVATE school, but not in the public schools.

To jcc:

Theists cannot defend their religion on solid reasonable grounds. Religion is a leap of faith for that very reason. Faith, not logic; I hear you trying to work up a rational argument; don't do it, you'll undermine your faith!

That said, americans are free to practice religion in the comfort of their own homes, churches, etc, as long as they are not supported by taxpayers(ie:tax-exempt status).

Here's the crux: If your beliefs are by their very nature irrational(ie:creationism, rapture, afterlife, etc.) you should not be allowed to hold a position of authority anymore than someone who says that(for example) the holocaust didn't happen. The problem isn't religion per se, it's the irrational beliefs of a religion. They are not grounded in reality. Someone who is not grounded in reality should not be given positions of power.

In the interests of fair debate, I would like to point out that I think religion is fine as long as it is perceived as mythology mixed in with historical information. Taken as myth, religion can be just fine(ie:it becomes rationally grounded).

jcc said: "...it is not anti-intellectual to consider a Creator.
..."

It is anti-intellectual to base your life on the belief that there is a creator!!!!!!!

For those who look down upon agnostics:

Agnosticism is the consideration of the God question as irrelevant.

This means that agnostics are not going to live a life that follows the tenets of a religion whose foundation is the belief in God!

More to the point:

Agnostics live their lives without a belief in God. As far as they are concerned there may or may not be a God, the question has no bearing. As you know, the definition of atheist is one who lives their life without a God-belief. Agnosticism is a branch of atheism. Agnosticism is a healthy viewpoint and has a rational foundation. So does atheism, atheists are just more pragmatic.

as atheists, we cannot use science to make a case against creationism or id. as stated above by others, there are a lot of holes in the data. heck, we are just now realizing that fossil fuels are not organic remnants and the source/origin of oil is up in the air.

but while the creator concept can be used to bridge the holes in the scietific data, it still relies on faith only rather than scientific data.

so they believe in adam and eve because there is no 100 percent certain scientific explanation. this is equivalent to an adult still believing in santa claus because they never actually saw their parents put out the goodies in the night.

I completely agree, people will always need religion to answer the unanswered questions of life. Science can only go so far, so people need to make up the rest in order to feel complete. I personally see it absolutely ridiculous to believe that we were all created by a super-natural man in the sky, just because we don't have all the answers to life.

To all:

I really would like for someone to answer me a few questions. Whether you argue for a ID or against it doesn't matter.

If the universe runs by "Matter can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change", then:

If there was a god, how could he "create" the matter? How could he ascend over the bounds of the world he was working in? What created god if everything needs a creator? (I'm not looking for a "God just did", "He had always been", or "God is all-powerful" answer. I want someone to explain how.)

If there is no god, where exactly did the matter that the universe is made from come from? How did something spark from nothing? What was there before matter? (If you use the big bang theory, I want to know where the matter that caused the explosion came from.)

And the correct answer to all of these is "I don't know." For until we KNOW how the universe came into being, we cannot say who is right or wrong.

Well Mesoforte, that is just the point isn't it? When one does not know the answer to a question the rational thing to do is to leave it unanswered until such time as it can be answered correctly. The irrational thing to do is to make up an answer and then try to justify after the fact. That would be insane!

jim:

You seem to have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. That's the reason that I say that this argument should be put to rest until we can find more evidence. Until then all of these arguments are kinda pointless.

I don't think the big bang theory holds that matter was created; rather, the universe and all its matter was once incredibly compressed, and now it is expanding.

As for a "Cambrian explosion," I'm delighted that an "intelligent design" adherent would concede a Cambrian period. Another blow to Biblical literalism.

Is there any evidence of matter generation of any sort in the universe?

If you get bored here I am having fun with ID folks.
http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

jcc-

I'm still waiting for your model...

Since you've got to be a particle-physicist and are good at calculating and quantum mechanics, has it ever occurred to you to look at the structure of the force of the creating agent? How does it decay (=where is it?), how did it adjust the 41 constants you've been citing on the other thread (on which level)? Maybe you found a lead to a "theory over everything". If the force of the creating agent is still around and still influences things (healing people and such...) you might be able to model a mechanism in your field of expertise.
This is certainly worth trying a lot more than to theorize about a 6000 y old earth with hell in the middle of the planet and "fountains of the deep". Even if you were a creationist scientist, you must have gotten there by now. I do know clever christian scientists, but none has ever wasted their time trying to prove a 6000 y old earth, let alone taught this theory, which is scientifically much weaker than the evolutionary model with all its holes, to kids.

jcc,

Let me state again that just because science can't definitively answer a question with the current evidence doesn't mean that a creator is necessary. The Cambrian explosion could merely be a result of the fossil record being unreliable for determining the first occurance of a particular species. I think a natural explanation like that is much more likely to be right than your magical explanation because magic doesn't exist.

I also think it's somewhat self centered to think the universe was tuned just for us. We are the result of the tuning of the universe, not the other way around.

do the simplest of plant forms have dna/rna? I read an elaborate proof on another web site that supposedly proved dna/rna couldn't have formed randomly (I'm not surprised) but could the simplest of plants or perhaps viruses form from the soup randomly?
Surely plants came first be fore more advanced life.

Another question I have is since black holes presumedly comress matter into a singularity and the big bang is a the opposite (kinda).
Does that mean the whole process is never ending. And since there appear to be more than one black hole does this indicate more than one universe in different dimensions.

When my high school biology class got to the topic of evolution, the teacher copped out. Instead of teaching, he had us divide into two teams -- evolutionists and creationists -- and hold a mock trial. The creationists could spout off on all the dogma their churches had given them, and the evolutionists were left to fend for themselves in the school library.

Mesoforte -- The difference between creationism and evolution is like the difference between dogma and education... the difference between building a house from the attic down or the foundation up. The big bang theory doesn't come from a vision quest or any protracted meditation; it comes from study of the natural world. Science DOES deserve more respect than religion for the questions it poses, because those questions lead back to demonstrable events in the real world.

The force behind creationism has never been demonstrated. The major force in the expanding universe theory may not be well understood, but it can be demonstrated. Hold a pencil out at arm's length; release pencil.