It continues to amaze me how willfully ignorant people can be about atheism and science. This post is an all-too-common opinion of atheism and science, and it's this kind of ignorance that makes me fearful of the future of this country:
ATHEISM
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned in dinosaurs ……..
Makes perfect sense.
Tags:
7 comments:
I'm truly curious, Anti. What makes me ignorant b/c I believe that God created it all? I'm fascinated by math - the perfection of it (even when I don't understand it). I'm riveted by the beauty & creativity of science & the natural world around me. I'm awed by the magnificent creation that is the human body (I dissected cadavers in college, so I have intimate knowledge of that which I speak). I'm continually thankful for modern medicine's progress toward 'fixing' the things that can go wrong (literally saved my life on at least 3 occasions). I respect these disciplines & those who practice them. I do not discount science, but I acknowledge that the One who created all of it is a greater mind than mine could ever fathom. And, I believe that The Mind loves me. And you.
Respectfully I ask, why is that ignorant?
I didn't say that you were ignorant for your beliefs. I said that the person who posted that was ignorant about atheism and what science says about the origin of the universe.
You are certainly entitled to believe in your god, but I find the Christian god to be logically incoherent. What science tells us about the universe points to a completely natural process that does not require a creator, and until there is actually evidence of such an entity, I find it irrational to believe in he/she/it.
Hi Anti~
Thanks so much for your response. Your comment @ Cristina's blog as well as your post here carry a condescending, belittling tone. While you may not have belittled me directly 'for my beliefs' you're calling me 'willfully ignorant' because I agree w/ Cristina. You're assuming that all people who hold the position she does (however they arrived at such a position) are willfully ignorant. I think, my friend, perhaps you're pre-judging people before you've listened very carefully. And I found that insulting.
I've studied 'what science says about the origins of the universe.' Though I don't claim science as a profession, I find it extraordinary & fascinating. Indeed, it is 'a completely natural process.'
Here's where we differ: it's more plausible in my mind to believe that there exists an Architect of this 'completely natural process' than to deny it. I conclude that the post you mock is pretty much dead on.
Here's my question: what or who do you believe, as an atheist, is responsible for the organization of any molecule, for the exquisite structure of the double helix? For the mathematic perfection of the circle, the sphere? Who or what do you think is responsible for the mind boggling nature of pi? What about the absolutely astounding creativity & variety of animals/plants in the rainforests? or deserts? I suppose your hypothesis might be that it all arose out of the natural qualities of molecules, etc. (I really do want to know what you would say...?) I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm curious.
Even if you look at an atom, the mind blowing structure of protons, neutrons, electrons. Who decided how these things would function & interact? Laws of matter or antimatter? Perhaps. But hat or who is/was the organizing force of such 'laws'? Nature? Of course. I read here: God. (And wonder of ALL wonders, God loves me. And you.)
I'm not one who believes that sincere, evangelical Christianity & science are mutually exclusive... In my mind, all-the-above is all the 'evidence of such an entity' anybody ever needs. I believe God has given us our lives to study, mull over, & chew on it. In my mind, God gave us this richness in order to draw us near, that we would take joy in it! That's much more fun, I would think, living joyfully...
Ever heard of C.S. Lewis, the brilliant 20th cent. thinker? I'm sure you have. Among the many books he wrote, one was called "Surprised By Joy". It's his 'journey' through trying to disprove God. You may enjoy it, if for nothing other than the mental challenge. Also "Mere Christianity" by Lewis - a logical, rational, orderly articulation of the Christian faith - another strong book. You may find some 'coherence' there...
I look forward to your response to my questions here. Thanks Anti.
Evolutionism is a theory, not science. There is no proof of evolution, just guesses. To call evolutionism, science, you need more faith than believing in an "inteligent design".
Actually, there is abundant proof of evolution, which is why it's a scientific theory, just like plate tectonics, gravity, magnetism and many others. In science, the word theory does not mean "wild assed guess" like it does the way most people use in everyday speaking. In order to become a theory in science, a hypothesis has to undergo a rigorous process of peer review backed by repeatable observation and/or experimentation, and any evidence that contradicts the theory requires that theory to be revised or thrown out.
If you are not aware of the evidence for evolution and you make idiotic statements like that, Cristina, you are being willfully ignorant and denying reality in order to hold on to your superstitions.
Evolution is the underpinning of nearly everything in biology, and most of the work done in that field, including medical research, would not be possible if it weren't for the truth of evolutionary theory. Just because you're too ignorant (and happy to stay that way, apparently), doesn't change reality.
Do you know how to talk to a person without calling names? Just because you don't agree with somebody, doesn't give you the right to call their statement idiotic.
Actually, there is no proof of evolution. Also evol. is not science. Let's look at the definition of science:
Formulating an hypotesis or theory based upon observation, testing and the ability to make predictions. Let's take one by one and apply it to the evolution theory.
Observation: does anybody observed that something came to life from a non-life? NO
Testing: is there any test that can be done, whatsoever, that will produce life from non-life? NO
Prediction: are there any predictions that can be made that life can be produced from non-life? NO.
Based on scientific obeservations, testings and predictions we can conclude that evolution is only a theory, a false one.
Who is being willfully ignorant and denying reality this time??
Do you know how to talk to a person without calling names? Just because you don't agree with somebody, doesn't give you the right to call their statement idiotic.First of all, I did not say you were an idiot, I called a statement idiotic. That said, I do apologize for not writing that better. It does come across as an ad hominem attack, and I should have realized it. No idea should ever be immune from criticism and debate, but I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Actually, there is no proof of evolution. Also evol. is not science. Let's look at the definition of science:
Formulating an hypotesis or theory based upon observation, testing and the ability to make predictions. Let's take one by one and apply it to the evolution theory.
Observation: does anybody observed that something came to life from a non-life? NOAgain, you're demonstrating your ignorance of science. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life, that's the theory of abiogenesis. It would be impossible to observe the entire process of organic chemicals (amino acids, which occur naturally) eventually organizing into proteins etc. because it takes millions, if not billions, of years. We have, however, observed the reactions of amino acids and we know a surprising amount about how those types of chemical actions work, and based upon that knowledge, there are several pretty interesting theories about the chemical origins of life.
Testing: is there any test that can be done, whatsoever, that will produce life from non-life? NOAgain, you're not talking about evolution, you're talking about abiogenesis, a completely different field of study. And yes, tests have been done with organic chemicals and they strongly suggest that amino acids can, in fact, self-organize into proteins given the right conditions. With a planet the size of the earth and billions of years, those conditions are pretty much guaranteed to happen, and probably many times over.
Prediction: are there any predictions that can be made that life can be produced from non-life? NO.Again, that's abiogenesis, NOT evolution.
Based on scientific obeservations, testings and predictions we can conclude that evolution is only a theory, a false one.Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of science. In science, "theory" is not a synonym for "wild-assed guess" like it is in the common vernacular. Before an hypothesis can become a scientific theory, it must stand up to rigorous testing, observation and repeatability, and must be predictive. Evolution fits all of those, and continues to be proven on a daily basis. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, and it's used every day in every biological field
including medicine, and has yet to be disproven, in spite of creationists attempting to do so for 150 years. In fact, because if its "trial by fire", evolutionary theory is probably stronger than any other scientific theory.
One of best proofs of evolution is it's ability to predict, not just in the fossil record, but in the genomic code and other areas as well.
Here's a page with just a few of the many, many predictions evolutionary theory has made:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
Scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." While he was being a bit flippant, his point was that, like any other scientific theory, finding results that the theory doesn't predict would invalidate part or perhaps even all of a scientific theory. The fact that in the 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species no evidence has been found which contradicts the theory of evolution makes it clear that the theory is sound. Yes, Darwin was wrong about a few things, and we've learned more about biology in the last 150 years than we had in all of human history before that, but the fundamentals of the theory still stand.
Who is being willfully ignorant and denying reality this time??Still you, I'm afraid. Part of the problem is that you read my initial post and misinterpreted it. I did not say you were willfully ignorant for your religious beliefs, I said you were willfully ignorant about atheism and science, and you seem determined to prove me right by continuing to throw out typical creationist sound bites instead of educating yourself about who atheists are, what our worldviews are, and what science actually says about evolution and the origins of life.
Lastly, you, like most creationists I've encountered in the blogosphere, seem to be incredibly sensitive to the word "ignorant". Ignorant does not mean stupid, it means that you are lacking knowledge about something, and every human (including myself) is ignorant in various areas. My problem with your original post was that you threw out some statements that are completely wrong about atheists and science, and learning about both of those things is a relatively simple matter, yet you chose not to do so before making those statements. The fact that you believe those show me that you have not sought out knowledge about atheists or evolution, but are just repeating statements you've heard other creationists make.
If you find value in science, and biology in particular, I would recommend reading Ken Miller's books. He's a Christian and a biologist, and a proponent of what he calls "theistic evolution". I don't agree with him about religion, but he's very well respected in the biology community and you might find his take on evolution and abiogenesis more palatable than most.
Post a Comment