← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 16632 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2005-02-07
2005-02-07 12:15 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?th]New York Times[/URL]
Design for Living By MICHAEL J. BEHE
Published: February 7, 2005
Bethlehem, Pa. ââ¬â IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: "It wasn't really designed. Not really.")
The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.
Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.
The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."
2005-02-09 19:48 | User Profile
I read the back-and-forth between Behe and his critics at [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html]this site[/url]. It's hard for a layman to judge who's right in this matter, but his critics take his disagreement very personally indeed. Here's a charming quote from Richard Dawkins: > Beahy should stop being lazy and should get up and think forhimself about how the flagellum evolved instead of this cowardly,lazy copping out by simply saying, oh, I can’t think of how it cameabout, therefore it must have been designed.
2005-02-09 20:01 | User Profile
Dawkins is an overrated fool, media's darling evo-propagandist.
Petr
2005-02-09 20:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I read the back-and-forth between Behe and his critics at [url="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html"]this site[/url]. It's hard for a layman to judge who's right in this matter, but his critics take his disagreement very personally indeed.[/QUOTE] I don't remember the exact quote, but I believe it was either Gould or Dawkins who stated that anyone who didn't accept evolution at face value was either evil or stupid. That does seem to be getting a little catty for an objective man of science. We'll simply leave aside for now the question of upon what basis an atheist can define anything as 'evil.'
2005-02-09 20:18 | User Profile
It was Dawkins, in his already notorious book review in New York Times in 1989.
[COLOR=Red][B]"'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)'. "[/B][/COLOR]
Moreover, he says he ain't going to take it back:
[B][COLOR=DarkRed]"I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed." [/COLOR] [/B]
[url]http://doggo.tripod.com/doggdawkins.html[/url]
2005-02-09 21:26 | User Profile
Intelligent Design is based on the notion of "irreducible complexity," and constitutes an important advance in evolutionary theory.
Darwin thought, for example, that the eye evolved through random mutation from light sensitive skin spots. This made perfect sense from the standpoint of 19th century science that could see only gross manifestations like spots on skin and the visible components of an eye. Given that Tinker Toy view of the organic, it was natural to conceive, as Darwin did, that the transition from skin spots to a fully functioning eye consistied in small random changes over a lot of time.
But the discovery of DNA and the enormous advances in organic chemistry changed all of that. Science now knows that the eye is an astonishing result of equisitely intricate chemical internactions that are complex almost beyond comprehension.
But here's the rub: that mind boggling complexity is "irreducible;" i.e. it couldn't be even one iota less complex and result in a functioning eye. There must be a perfectly timed cascade of extremely complex molecules all interacting in a perfect symphony to produce an eye. Even the slightest malfunction will result in a useless appendage instead of a survival enhancing organ. The fact is that there are no slight mutations on a chemical level, as Darwin assumed. The difference between a light senstitive skin spot and a functioning eye is far greater than can be explained by small random mutation.
Again, Darwin couldn't see that because he didn't have modern biochemistry. But we now know that the complexity is not only equisite it is irreducibly necessary to the end result.
It beggars the imagination to think that such irreducible complexity is the result of chance. The eye didn't come from chance. It was in fact engineered.
The dreadful, empirically inescabable fact confronting us now is that DNA is an artifact. Who made it is open to question. But there can no longer be any reasoned disagreement as to the fact that it is the result of intelligent design.
Walter
2005-02-10 03:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The dreadful, empirically inescabable fact confronting us now is that DNA is an artifact. Who made it is open to question. But there can no longer be any reasoned disagreement as to the fact that it is the result of intelligent design.[/QUOTE]I don't think Behe goes that far. What he has done is tell the Darwinists to put up or shut up: no more Just-So stories, no more handwaving, no more speculation, no more arguing from analogy. Demonstrate how things like the flagellum or blood clotting could evolve by random mutation and natural selection.
It could be done: an experiment tinkered with mouse genes to see the effect on blood clotting. The mice died, so that was a failure, but a success would go a long way toward showing that evolution really is more than just a theory.
2005-02-10 04:10 | User Profile
Walter,
The case for irreducible complexity is not nearly so open-and-shut. Please read this for counter-arguments:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html[/url]
One rather straightforward problem I have with the idea of intelligent design is that if creatures were designed, then many were designed poorly. For example, there is no need for human males to have nipples. There is no reason for people to have an appendix -- you can have it removed and still have a perfectly normal life. Many animals in predator-prey relationships have "competing" design aspects.
Also, there is so much suffering in nature that if nature was created by a God, then that God is cruel. The Bible says that God cares for all creatures, but that is nonsense. I once saw a documentary on Animal Planet that included a story about a baby elephant that woke up abandoned by its mother. The little elephant wandered the African plains in desperation only to end up being eaten alive by hyenas. Heartwarming stories like that are the norm in nature; they happen all the time. Few animals die deaths free of suffering. And since animals can't sin, their suffering is unjust.
For more on "intelligent design," here's an interesting website on organisms that appear "designed":
[url]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/[/url]
It seems unquestionable that whomever designed such creatures was intelligent; the problem is that the intelligence was put to malevolent use! (I wonder what tapeworms lived on prior to the "fall of man." Maybe they hopped around and ate leaves off of trees? LOL)
2005-02-10 04:15 | User Profile
Let me point out one particularly interesting "designed organism" -- an organism that deceives. Since God "can neither deceive nor be deceived" according to the Bible, it follows that God could not have created the following plant:
[img]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/bee_flower_sex.jpg[/img]
Bee orchids (genus Ophrys). While not an irreducibly grotesque system, this unusual group of flowers should still be noted as a problem for evolution. Their structure mimics that of female bees and wasps, down to copying their looks and even pheromones. When a lonely male insect tries to mate with one, a specialized organ (appropriately called the "labellum") coats him with pollen. This ensures that other flowers of the same species will be pollinated later, and demonstrates that you can catch more bees with sex than you can with honey...
Dr. Behe (begrudgingly) puts forth a rock-solid scriptural case that the God of the Bible could not have created these flowers. While the other organisms listed here have dramatic precedent in the plagues, devastations, etc. of both Old and New Testaments, a flower specifically designed to promote kinky, cross-species sex is out of the question. He hypothesizes that this is the result of Satan's diabolically perverted influence on the origin of species.
[url]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/[/url]
2005-02-10 06:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Let me point out one particularly interesting "designed organism" -- an organism that deceives. Since God "can neither deceive nor be deceived" according to the Bible, it follows that God could not have created the following plant:
[img]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/bee_flower_sex.jpg[/img]
[url]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/[/url][/QUOTE]
It also says by deception you shall wage war.
2005-02-10 07:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]I read the back-and-forth between Behe and his critics at [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html]this site[/url]. It's hard for a layman to judge who's right in this matter, but his critics take his disagreement very personally indeed. Here's a charming quote from Richard Dawkins:> Beahy should stop being lazy and should get up and think forhimself about how the flagellum evolved instead of this cowardly,lazy copping out by simply saying, oh, I canââ¬â¢t think of how it cameabout, therefore it must have been designed. [/QUOTE]
To the Evolutionist, the imagination is itself evidence. Dawkins is saying that Behe should just imagine a just-so explanation that gives the glory to Evolution.
2005-02-10 11:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Let me point out one particularly interesting "designed organism" -- an organism that deceives. Since God "can neither deceive nor be deceived" according to the Bible, it follows that God could not have created the following plant[/QUOTE]
Interesting point. IIRC, that flower was mentioned in one of Dawkins' books (Climbing Mount Improbable I think), but not for the purposes of making that particular argument. You could probably also argue that any kind of animal/insect camoflage counts as deception as well. So stick insects could be the work of the devil :).
2005-02-10 12:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]To the Evolutionist, the imagination is itself evidence. Dawkins is saying that Behe should just imagine a just-so explanation that gives the glory to Evolution.[/QUOTE]
Dawkins is attempting to refute the Creationist's argument that evolution is impossible because a plausible explanation of the origins of certain bacteria cannot be imagined that doesn't involve intelligent design. If a plausible explanation CAN be imagined, isn't that argument refuted?
Of course, showing that Evolution is possible doesn't on it's own prove that it happened, but in this instance Dawkins is simply responding to a very specific allegation of Evolution's impossibility, not trying to build a general argument in favour of Evolution's logical necessity. He does that elsewhere.
2005-02-10 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Dawkins is an overrated fool....[/QUOTE] His inability to comprehend the rather simple framework of multilevel selection is indeed baffling -- unless, it's an act calculated to protect his own esteem. He should recognize that his esteem suffers as a result of his apparent imperviousness to scientific argument.
2005-02-10 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. [/QUOTE] This hypothesis is highly speculative, but what if mutation is not (or is not always) random? What if the "intelligent design" somehow is effected by the rest of the chromosome? This thought occurred to me as I read "The Origins of Life" by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, which was cited by D.S. Wilson in his first book.
2005-02-11 00:52 | User Profile
Never take the word of others as being the final answer but only as a tool in order to find out "if it is" the final word.
2005-02-11 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]The case for irreducible complexity is not nearly so open-and-shut. Please read this for counter-arguments:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html[/url]
Darwin himself put forth the argument of irreducible complexity as test to refute Evolution, but that was before the case of irreducible complexity was built. Evolutionists are very short of any reasonable test of Evolution. Scientists test theories. How can we test Evolution if Evolutionists insist on pleading that every reasonable test is invalid?
Using the arguments in your link, I would not even be able to conclude that your sentence was intelligently designed. It's irreducibly complex so I think a person put those letters together, but there might be a natural mechanism I'm not aware of.
One rather straightforward problem I have with the idea of intelligent design is that if creatures were designed, then many were designed poorly. For example, there is no need for human males to have nipples. There is no reason for people to have an appendix -- you can have it removed and still have a perfectly normal life. Many animals in predator-prey relationships have "competing" design aspects.
How does Evolution's "Survival of the Fittest" result in poor design? It's axiomatic that these are the fittest designs that you are calling poor design.
Why would Evolution preserve an appendix without value, but with a slight propensity to become infected, burst, and kill the rabbit that is evolving into a human. Maybe it does have some value.
Likewise, why would Evolution preserve male niples for many millions of years, if they have no value? Granted, those don't tend to become infected and explode. Still...
Why don't you tell yourself "There's probably something you just haven't thought of"? Maybe the value of a male nipples isn't in giving milk but in the intelligent design of extracting the maximum complexity from the minimum DNA. Males start out at conception as females.
Also, there is so much suffering in nature that if nature was created by a God, then that God is cruel. The Bible says that God cares for all creatures, but that is nonsense. I once saw a documentary on Animal Planet that included a story about a baby elephant that woke up abandoned by its mother. The little elephant wandered the African plains in desperation only to end up being eaten alive by hyenas.
That is the argument Creationists use against Theistic Evolutionists (e.g. Hugh Ross) who insist there was death and suffering before the Fall, when God called everything Good.
It seems unquestionable that whomever designed such creatures was intelligent; the problem is that the intelligence was put to malevolent use! (I wonder what tapeworms lived on prior to the "fall of man." Maybe they hopped around and ate leaves off of trees? LOL)[/QUOTE]
I think the popular scientific belief is that tapeworms have infected humans only fairly recently (on the popular time scale) as a result of unsanitary living conditions.
2005-02-11 21:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Walter,
The case for irreducible complexity is not nearly so open-and-shut. Please read this for counter-arguments:
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html[/url][/QUOTE]And for counter-counter arguments, look at [url=http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm]Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Pathways[/url]> Nevertheless, what we need is evidence that the initial state was more complicated than the IC state. For example, are we talking about flagellum that were originally composed of 60 parts? Where is the evidence for such a claim? It is an interesting thought, but without evidence, we can't take it beyond the realm of philosophy.
2005-02-11 22:25 | User Profile
Stanley, your link connects to that "tossed newborn baby"-story...
Petr
2005-02-11 22:49 | User Profile
Oops. It's fixed now.
2005-02-12 04:26 | User Profile
Today is Darwin Day! To celebrate I think I'll sit out on my veranda with a cold beer and make a point of failing to appreciate the divine origins of the beauty of natural creation surrounding me.
[url]http://darwinday.org/home/index.html[/url]
2005-02-12 06:03 | User Profile
:punk: [QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Today is Darwin Day! To celebrate I think I'll sit out on my veranda with a cold beer and make a point of failing to appreciate the divine origins of the beauty of natural creation surrounding me.
[url]http://darwinday.org/home/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]
:punk:
2005-02-15 08:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]And for counter-counter arguments, look at [url=http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darwinianpathways.htm]Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Pathways[/url][/QUOTE] That is something I will have to look into further. Nevertheless, I am forced to remain skeptical that life on earth originated from a great Designer when many of the alleged designs are obviously flawed:
[url]http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm[/url]
I also repeat the point made earlier: What are we supposed to think about a designer who designs obvious and unnecessary cruelty (to innocent animals) into nature? Why must some animals live by eating other animals? And are we supposed to be impressed with the majesty of the designer of such organisms as tapeworms? For the fundamentalists here: Were there tapeworms in the Garden of Eden? If so, what did they eat?
2005-02-15 14:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler][B]I also repeat the point made earlier: What are we supposed to think about a designer who designs obvious and unnecessary cruelty (to innocent animals) into nature? [/B] Why must some animals live by eating other animals? And are we supposed to be impressed with the majesty of the designer of such organisms as tapeworms? For the fundamentalists here: Were there tapeworms in the Garden of Eden? If so, what did they eat?[/QUOTE]
Great questions.
My suggestion is to start with a little humility.
First try to imagine how utterly insignificant you are - and how very puny even your loftiest thoughts are - before the infinite majesty God. Ask yourself where you were when God created out of nothing things like the universe with billions of galaxies and things like four dimensional space-time with black holes.
Once you've gained a bit of perspective on your place in the universe, have a nice lunch and take a long walk in the park.
Then reconsider the questions. See if you still feel like asking questions such as "what are we supposed to think about a designer who designs obvious and unnecessary cruelty (to innocent animals) into nature?"
I think you'll see that the much more pertinent question what He is supposed to think of you.
"Be still and know that I am God."
2005-02-15 15:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think you'll see that the much more pertinent question what He is supposed to think of you.[/QUOTE]
The good news is He tells us in the Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Now that's amazing!
2005-02-15 18:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The good news is He tells us in the Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Now that's amazing![/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
Why He puts up with half of my shenanigans I'll never understand.
2005-02-16 06:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Great questions.
My suggestion is to start with a little humility.
First try to imagine how utterly insignificant you are - and how very puny even your loftiest thoughts are - before the infinite majesty God. Ask yourself where you were when God created out of nothing things like the universe with billions of galaxies and things like four dimensional space-time with black holes. The question at hand is whether God exists in the first place. You're assuming that he does exist, but there's no evidence of that, is there? Why should I bow before an invention of other mere mortals? That's for other people to do, not me.
If God wants me to quit asking questions and to just "trust him," then he can tell me that himself.
Once you've gained a bit of perspective on your place in the universe, have a nice lunch and take a long walk in the park.
Then reconsider the questions. See if you still feel like asking questions such as "what are we supposed to think about a designer who designs obvious and unnecessary cruelty (to innocent animals) into nature?" Why shouldn't I ask such questions? Is it going to hurt God's feelings? If he's so big and tough, then he can take it, I'm sure.
I think you'll see that the much more pertinent question what He is supposed to think of you.[/QUOTE]If God created me and doesn't like the way I am, then he has no one to blame but himself, does he?
2005-02-16 06:49 | User Profile
I just saw your post, HH.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Darwin himself put forth the argument of irreducible complexity as test to refute Evolution, but that was before the case of irreducible complexity was built. Evolutionists are very short of any reasonable test of Evolution. Scientists test theories. How can we test Evolution if Evolutionists insist on pleading that every reasonable test is invalid? This is absolutely wrong. Evolution has been tested many, many times. Fundamentalists refuse to look at the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
I suggest you go here and read: [url]http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html[/url]
Using the arguments in your link, I would not even be able to conclude that your sentence was intelligently designed. It's irreducibly complex so I think a person put those letters together, but there might be a natural mechanism I'm not aware of. I'm afraid I don't follow you here.
How does Evolution's "Survival of the Fittest" result in poor design? It's axiomatic that these are the fittest designs that you are calling poor design. Fitness is a relative term. An organism's fitness depends upon its environment, which is something that can change.
Why would Evolution preserve an appendix without value, but with a slight propensity to become infected, burst, and kill the rabbit that is evolving into a human. Maybe it does have some value. In human beings it has no value whatsoever, although it might have had value in proto-humans. It very well might have some value in other animals.
Likewise, why would Evolution preserve male niples for many millions of years, if they have no value? Granted, those don't tend to become infected and explode. Still... Because evolution doesn't "think" -- it's a messy process that effectively jury-rigs organisms to function.
Why don't you tell yourself "There's probably something you just haven't thought of"? Maybe the value of a male nipples isn't in giving milk but in the intelligent design of extracting the maximum complexity from the minimum DNA. LOL, no I'm afraid that's not it. The human genome is packed with "junk" sequences that code for nothing.
Males start out at conception as females. No, they have XY chromosomes rather than XX -- even when they're still a single cell.
That is the argument Creationists use against Theistic Evolutionists (e.g. Hugh Ross) who insist there was death and suffering before the Fall, when God called everything Good. I don't consider death and suffering "good." If God does, then the term "good" as used by humans is meaningless.
I think the popular scientific belief is that tapeworms have infected humans only fairly recently (on the popular time scale) as a result of unsanitary living conditions.[/QUOTE]I seriously doubt that. Tapeworms and other parasites have certainly infected humans from the very beginning, probably as a result of eating uncooked meat.
Besides, tapeworms are only one example. What purpose did God have for making viruses in the Garden of Eden? How about bacteria?
Arguments like these really only scratch the surface of the reasons why I know the Bible is wrong about creation. Other reasons include: no mention of atoms, no mention of planets, no mention of microscopic organisms, talk of a "firmament" into which the stars (and floodgates) were supposedly fixed, etc., etc. It's all self-evident mythology. It's written exactly as I would expect ancient goatherders to write about such things.
2005-02-16 09:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Angler]The question at hand is whether God exists in the first place. You're assuming that he does exist, but there's no evidence of that, is there? [/QUOTE]
Oh, I dunno.
Try looking out your window.
[QUOTE]Why should I bow before an invention of other mere mortals? That's for other people to do, not me.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Don't even consider bowing down to the created. You bow down only to the Uncreated God.
[QUOTE]If God wants me to quit asking questions and to just "trust him," then he can tell me that himself. [/QUOTE]
Maybe He has. You seem rather occupied with what's going on in your own head. Perhaps you haven't been listening.
Think about it.
[QUOTE]Why shouldn't I ask such questions?[/QUOTE]
Go ahead and ask them, but know that they make you look foolish.
[QUOTE] Is it going to hurt God's feelings? If he's so big and tough, then he can take it, I'm sure.[/QUOTE]
Why no, you won't hurt His feelings at all. In fact, I believe the only time God is known to have laughed is when a man offerred to take him on in a fight.
[QUOTE]If God created me and doesn't like the way I am, then he has no one to blame but himself, does he?[/QUOTE]
You lack all perspective on yourself.
God is not in the dock. He doesn't answer to our expections, we answer to His.
You make the fundamental mistake that the moral rules God made to govern His universe govern Him as well. But that's just silly. Do the rules a programmer writes for his programs bind him? Of course not.
God made the Natural Law to govern us, not to govern Him. "Blame?" For Heaven's sake, Angler - the concept of "blame" presumes that the Creator of Morality is Himself subject to his own invention.
Please stop to consider the arrogance of your statement. You - an insignificant speck of dust on an obscure planet in one of billions of galaxies - presume to fix blame on the Creator of it all. You presume to challenge the moral right of the very One Who instilled in you a sense of the moral.
One can only blush as such self-consumed hubris.
It is certainly unbecoming in a young man.
2005-02-17 07:23 | User Profile
You're still failing to understand where I'm coming from, Walter. Please try to think outside the box of your religious convictions for a moment.
You think I'm judging God. I'm doing no such thing. I'm judging the plausibility of human beings' characterization of God. If, for example, human beings tell me that God loves all his creatures and cares for them (as the Bible says), then I have every right to question that statement when everything I see around me contradicts it. I must then consider alternative possibilities, such as (1) the Bible is untrue, and/or (2) God created the universe and then left it to run as it will (deism).
If God came down from heaven and told me, "Angler, I want you to trust me," or "Angler, I want you to do this for me," then I would certainly be guilty of hubris if said no to Him. But that's not what's happening. I'm not questioning God. I'm questioning MEN -- MEN who claimed to speak for God thousands of years ago, and MEN who claim to speak for God now.
Think about it this way, Walter: If some guy you'd never met before walked up to you on the street and told you that God said "do this," you'd be skeptical, right? Why, then, are you so willing to believe people who did the same thing over 2000 years ago? Why does the passage of centuries make claims more plausible?
Everything you think you know about God -- including whether or not he exists -- you've learned from other mortals. It's all hearsay. You've never met God or heard God speak to you directly. Therefore, everything you think is "trust in God" is really trust in other human beings. It's just that simple.
One last thing:
The question at hand is whether God exists in the first place. You're assuming that he does exist, but there's no evidence of that, is there?
Oh, I dunno.
Try looking out your window. When I look out my window, I see evidence that the earth and the universe exist, not that God exists. There is no reason why the universe (or whatever power created it) can't be self-existent. It's also possible that a God exists who isn't a "personal" God, i.e., who pays any attention whatsoever to what happens on earth. What is impossible is the creation story in the Bible; the notion of a perfect God creating imperfection and then being offended by his own creations; and so on. These beliefs are every bit as ridiculous as belief in leprechauns, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. If I'm going to believe in them, then it will take a LOT more than just hearsay -- and by "hearsay" I mean the Bible as well.