Intelligence and Christianity: Oil and Water?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by secretasianman, Nov 2, 2002.

  1. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    My last post wasn't very open to discussion, so let me rephrase:

    What are you guys's most common objections to Christians and Christianity (not always the same thing)? i.e. evolution "proves" Genesis wrong, Christians are guilty of heinous crimes, there's no proof that God exists, etc. I, as a Christian-in-hiatus (grew up in a church community, got cynical and left) would like to know your questions/objections/doubts, because many are probably my own - and since I have access to an intelligent, and I believe rational (but let's not get bogged down in semantics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) group of Christians here at Cal, we may be able to have a discussion that doesn't descend into name-calling and unsubstantiated claims (on the Christian's part and yours).

    So if you're honest with yourself and have real questions to ask, I'd like the chance to hear them. Step right up, people...

    - Ed
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    What are you guys's most common objections to atheist and atheism (not always the same thing, others claim god is a myth, others simply are agnostic but switches to atheist back and forth)? i.e. evolution "proves" things evolve, and proves atheist who take genesis literally wrong, middle eastern and vietnamese and cambodians are guilty of heinous crimes, there's no proof that God is a myth, etc.

    So if you're honest with yourself and have real questions to ask, I'd like the chance to hear them. Step right up, people...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Okay, let me get it straight - you're asking what objections Christians have against atheists? Am I hopelessly tired, or are you just bored? And btw, I hope I didn't come off as arrogant in that last post or in here.
    I'll pretend there was an actual question in there - as far as objecting to evolution "proves" Genesis false or whatever-it-was, there was an interesting, though brief slideshow at a Friday bible study I went to once which offered some interesting evidence against Darwinism about "irreducibly complex systems". Here's the meat of it, more at absk.org under the "recent FAQs" section.

    *************************************************
    Darwin conceded himself about the potential downfall of his theory in The Origin of Species:

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

    Darwin understood that if his theory would ever be accepted, he had to show that evolution could create complex organs like the eye in a step-by-step process.

    It would have seemed like an end to Darwin’s career, but he cleverly defended his theory.
    He defended his theory NOT by presenting a real pathway that evolution might have used to create the eye, but by pointing to living animals with different kinds of eyes (ranging from the simple to the complex) and suggesting a similar, possible sequence of development.

    SLIDE 8: A Proposal for the Progression of Eye Development

    It is important to understand what Darwin actually said and what he did not say. Again, he did not provide any evidence (experimental or historical) for a pathway for the development of a complex organ like the eye. Nor did he offer an answer as to how the most primitive light-sensitive cells (presumably the starting point of eye development) came in the first place.

    He only pointed to a series of already existing types of eyes and hypothesized that evolution could have proceeded through such a sequence of increasing complexity.

    Little did people know back then how complex even the simple “eyespot” of a planarian (a kind of flatworm) is.

    Though Darwin never really answered the question of complex organs, his arguments were plausible enough to satisfy his supporters and take the punch out of his critics.


    SLIDE 9: The Advent of Biochemistry

    But with the advent and progress of modern biochemistry in the latter half of the 20th century, it’s been increasingly more difficult to support the kind of bold and assertive assumptions Darwin made.

    Why?

    Because when you examine life at the so-called “nuts and bolts” level—at the cellular and molecular level—you find it’s full of complex systems that could not have ever come about by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” over time.





    SLIDE 10: Irreducible Complexity

    These complex systems are what’s called IRREDUCBLY COMPLEX systems, which describes any system composed of multiple well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to a basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

    This concept is best understood by an illustration. Let me show you…

    SLIDE 11: Example of an Irreducibly Complex System

    Here is a common mousetrap. This is an example of an irreducibly complex system. How so?

    Identify parts and coordinated functions of each…

    Here are some key points to notice:
    - For this device to function properly, all the parts must first be there at the same time.
    - All the parts must work together in a highly coordinated and interrelated fashion. For example, the hammer cannot be attached to the end of the holding bar.
    - No single part in and of itself has any function apart
    - The system has Zero function only until all the parts exist in just the right manner.


    SLIDE 12: Some Irreducibly Complex Biological Systems

    And Irreducibly complex biological systems like those that produce vision, blood clotting or an immune response are far more complex than any mechanical system.

    SLIDE 13: Bacterial Flagellum

    Even the “simplest” cell, a bacterium, is full of an array of irreducibly complex systems. Here is the whip-like “tail” that some bacteria use to move around.

    SLIDE 14: Challenges to Darwinian Evolution

    By definition, it is impossible for Irreducibly complex systems to be produced by the step-by-step accumulation of mutations. It’s an all or nothing kind of thing. Either the system works or it doesn’t.

    Natural selection can only select for functioning systems that already exist, not “to-be-completed” systems.

    SLIDE 15: A Theory in Crisis

    Biochemistry has exposed the utter inadequacy Darwinian evolution to explain how complex molecules came to be.

    There are some evolutionists who concede this problem.

    Dr. Colin Patterson, Sr. Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (the mother of all Natural History museums) has this to say:

    "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

    Dr. Patterson was not misinterpreting the evidence through a narrow, religious lens, but objectively, as a scientist and evolutionist.


    SLIDE 17: An Experience that Blew My Evolutionary Sock Off!

    At a national meeting of the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology in Boston a few years back, I had the opportunity to hear Professor Lynn Margulis, a giant in the field of evolution for her endo-symbiosis theory, give the plenary session lecture along with the late Stephen J. Gould. I will never forget what I heard her say and the response of the audience (a hotel conference room with a over a thousand professors, researchers and graduate students).

    She said that “history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo Saxon biology.”

    SLIDE 18: Another Experience that Blew My Other Evolutionary Sock Off!

    To my utter amazement, she also issued a direct challenge to anyone in the room to site her one example of a single, unambiguous example of a new species being created by the accumulation of mutations. I looked back from the where I was sitting and just saw blank faces. There was complete silence. She went on to say that proponents of the textbook orthodoxy of Neo-Darwinism, “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin—having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.” Ouch.

    Why the unflinching confidence in Darwinian evolution by most scientists? It is because there simply isn’t any better explanation—unless of course you start to consider the possibility of an Intelligent Designer. But to infer design is to infer a Designer and that is not the kind of conclusions science likes to make.

    SLIDE 18: Evolution’s Philosophical Underpinnings

    Science has an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism.

    Philosophical naturalism functions as a filter to determine what even qualifies as data.

    With this kind of philosophical framework that defines what is and is not plausible, there simply cannot be any other explanation other than a natural one. Everything must be attributable to some physical law or phenomena. That is the dogma.

    Evolution turns out to be bad science because interpretations and conclusions aren’t based on the weight of the evidence but on a bias toward philosophical naturalism.

    SLIDE: 19: Conclusion

    - Evolution attempts to explain how life and the cosmos came to be by purely natural, physical and purposeless forces but does so a priori— i.e., It is first assumed that there can only be a natural answer and then the data is interpreted to fit that conclusion.

    - Evolution really just turns out to be the atheist’s own creation story.

    - The existence of irreducibly complex systems at the biochemical level of life poses a serious challenge to Darwinian evolution as a viable theory to explain the origin and development of life.
    ***************************************************
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2002
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Wow, muscleman actually had a valid point!

    *Xev looks out the window as the a pale rider is knocked off a pale horse by a flying pig*

    What do Christians have against us athiests?
     
  8. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Xev, it isn't that Christians *object* to atheists (not in the emotional/irrational sense of "fear") - i.e. they think homosexuality is wrong but don't spit on homosexuals. No need to victimize yourselves.

    Look, I might be taking for granted a kinda Sunday-School background knowledge here, so let me try to address the question. And muscleman, sorry for misinterpreting your point.
    I'll try to address the specific points in your post, and hopefully Xev's will be kinda addressed too.

    Evolution - see my second post

    Literal interpretation of Genesis - I think that "Christians" who take Genesis literally are wrong

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I gather that the consensus is Genesis is Hebrew poetry (notice the repetition, the imagery); it's a widely accepted belief even outside the Christian community...

    Heinous Crimes - Well, of course people are by and large evil by nature. We all know that. It's usually that evil deeds or "mistakes," if you will, committed by Christians are looked upon more critically and used as ammunition against Christianity as a whole - which I sometimes think is a mistake. Imperfect people can't perfectly interpret a *perfect* message, nor can they deny their base natures - they can only make a heart-felt effort out of a loving RELATIONSHIP with God.
    Where did you get the idea that Christians are a buncha elitists who want to see people burn in eternal fire and brimstone? Hypocrites, in short?

    Proof of God - Nobody's proved that God exists. Nobody's been able to prove that the Bible is a fabrication, though many have tried - there happens to be good evidence supporting the validity of the Bible as a Historical Document, which I'd be willing to find if asked to do so.
    From my observation of other Christians, I would guess that the "leap of faith" isn't a blind one - you have to search and question long enough to convince yourself that Christianity is a reasonable alternative to atheism/agnosticism/whatever. The more I type, the more I'm starting to understand how important it is to actually SEE "real" Christians (for lack of a better word) in practice, to see the profound and lasting differences in their outlooks on life/behavior. And no, these aren't the stereotypical sheep/zombies/whatever.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not many of you guys have been to a "good" church or met any "good" representatives of Christianity and known them closely.

    Damn I really ought to sleep, but please bring up some more questions. I wish I could convey my sincerity in a better way than this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    - Ed
     
  9. Jaxom Tau Zero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    559
    here's a counter link for the irreducibly complex argument.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

    And why is the statement that evolution shouldn't be taught in science classes never followed with a replacement scientific theory? Should we teach nothing, then? The best way to debunk an existing theory is to offer another theory that fits the data better.
     
  10. joegurl13 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    What about HIV?, HIV is genetically evoleing all the time, thats why they can cure it. Plus i think, that the only reason that people could not think of one because, evolution took place over like 4 billion years. Human have only had the compacity to even look for an example for mabye the last 200-300 years.
     
  11. joegurl13 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
  12. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Well, I've almost hit the 24-hour mark as I type this, so I'll make it short. The rice.edu link was, well, a nice little satire (although some of the objections didn't satisfy, if you will). It made me start wondering what the contemporary Christian perspective on Noah's Ark is, so I'll try and post it up here when (if) I get a response/find an answer.

    As for the behe link, I looked through it bleary-eyed and decided that I'd *wisely* keep my mouth shut (it doesn't interest me very much, and I'm not going to major in anything near that) and pass it on to someone who knows better - but since he's a busy guy you might need to wait a little for any sorta response.

    Not that we should teach "nothing," just with a grain of salt. i.e. not playing up the attitude that "Darwin didn't mean to murder God, but he did."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
  14. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Don't worry Xev. He doesn't. He's simply found an interesting little argumentative device. He takes a questions posed by someone else and switches the terms around. It’s a clever little device that fits in well with his formulaic method of argument. But don’t worry, there’s still no actual thought to it and any relevance is simply a result of the originating question. Hell is still nice and toasty.

    ~Raithere
     
  15. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    Exactly secret, we all know what evolution is all about, this children thinks that it is a fact, well they are right in a way, it is a fact that IT CONTAINS NO PROOF, such theory if claimed as a fact will lead to God the intelligent designer as a fact as well, both contain the same amount of evidence. However I do believe that things evolve, if you call that evolution, then I agree with evolution, and I agree with an intelligent designer because it is evident as well. However, evolution doesnt contradict with christianity at all, only those who take genesis literally or the book of revelation (southern Baptist and other churches).
     
  16. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    While christianity's creationism is called "intelligent designer" and its proven...

    Atheism's creationism meanwhile is called "super coincidence" and it contains no evidence at all...(evolution proves things evolve, not proves things exist.)

    Hmm, If Im NORMAL, with functioning brain, I will take the claim that is evident, not to wishfull thinking such as "chance" or "super luck".
     
  17. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    Jaxom, I quoted some of what i read from that link u sent concerning "intelligent design vs. freak accident (by atheist)". Read it, after all it is from your so-called scientific study website.

    How stupid, this guy thought that we believe that genes are not copies of each other but happens to look alike coincidentally. Then this pathetic atheist scientist goes on whining why he cant get a press, you know why he cant? Because he is stupid! And if media offers him a chance, I bet he wont accept it because he knows his a lying idiot himself (he has to unless he is a retard).
    We do agree with evolution, Behe stressed that clearly. We agree how we descend from apes, (though it is just a theory) or even better yet, to tickle your ears we do agree that we evolve OFF EXISTING SINGLED CELL, again WE AGREE WITH EVOLUTION, FOR THINGS EVOLVE, WE ARE ALL IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER, GENES CAN MAY INDEED BE RELATED TO EACH OTHER; HOWEVER EVOLUTION DOESNT PROVE THINGS EXIST. PERIOD, IF THERES ANYTHING ATHEIST ARE GOOD AT, THEN THAT WILL BE PUTTING WORDS IN OUR MOUTH AND LYING COMPULSIVELY .

    The theory atheist comes out concerning how things evolve is. "A Cell didnt appear overnight, but it took millions of years"..In other words....

    There was void, nothing, & we came from nowhere like mathematics "-we r,-1234567890=1234567890 (So if your a teen & mom caught you holding 3 bottles of beer, just tell her “be quite mom, the 3 bottles of beer came out of nowhere, it was –123=123, formula E=MC2, LOL”). Then accidentally, a cell appeared! Don’t know how but I think the hurricane, lightning, & earthquake did it by "LUCK" (Physics). Then the single cell survived like a barbarian & "accidentally & luckily" got bigger. But this didn’t happen in one single step, but through random luck/chance (Super Extra Luck). The nucleus was luckily made first, this guy u wont believe it, he was very strong & was waiting until Mr. cytoplasm appeared. Then later on mitochondria accidentally appeared, he then said to cytoplasm & nucleus "sorry guys it took me 100,000,000,000,000,000 yrs to exist, its just that Mr. earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting guys", then ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands & thousands of other parts accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell. Men u wouldn’t believe it but for some weird reasons the first parts were mysteriously strong & survived on their own for millions of years w/out any help until the rest of the parts appeared to become a fully developed cell. Mr. Nucleus because he was waiting so long, he was mad at the lightning & wind saying "Punks, why did u guys make me wait this long! Damn it lightning, create Mr. cytoplasm quicker next time ok!" this cell was very strong, strong enough to survive alone & replicate itself until it became trillions & trillions & turned into a fish!! This cell is over trillions years old waiting all those time for the rest of the body parts to appear! If I were u, I wouldn’t mess around with this cell, I bet 100 bucks it could knock out Mike Tyson in 3 rounds. This fish then became land mammals, then dinosaurs, then here we are today zillions of zillions of years later, we are all accidents. (In this case, u can put a raisin outside & millions of yrs from now that sun dried grape will turn into dinosaurs, fishes, birds, etc., thanks to the simple laws of physics, LOL).


    There’s only one option left, the proven intelligent designer. Accept this or you’ll share this proofless pathetic theory, this theory is a joke…
     
  18. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Cris -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There were plenty of smart people, like Einstein who were actually more sympathetic to the idea of a creator (God specifically - but maybe I'm wrong about this) - for what it's worth.

    So how about the questions about the Bible's validity as a historical document, or as a scientific document (which it isn't meant to be, I'm assuming)? The link from rice was a bit much to tackle what with college and it being part satire anyways, so more specific questions would be helpful.

    Muscleman: You should at least respect their faith in man's (and woman's) limitless intellectual potential, right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2002
  19. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    secret, I dont respect limited intellect ignorant people who goes on lying, falsely accusing christians, and claims to only acknowledge what has evidence, yet are atheist who have no evidence that God is a myth. At the same time blaims on christianity some violence that took place long ago, and generalizing all christians, meanwhile does something to cause possible violence against christianity by attempting to remove the pledge of alegion's motto "One natuion under God", the hipocrite ignorants.

    Jesus show no respect for the hipocrite Pharisees at his time (people who doesnt practice what they preach). Jesus called them "you brood of vipers!" liars and hipocrites, however Jesus still loves them for at the end he said "Forgive them for they donot know what they do". As some preachers are AND MOST ATHEIST ARE, why most? BECAUSE MOST OF THEM DOESNT ACKNOWLEDGE GOD EVEN WHEN THEY ARE GIVEN PROOF, ALTHOUGH SOME ARE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST FLAT OUT IGNORANT (some kids), and then later on accepted God.

    There is nothing evident about atheism and theres definitely NOTHING SCIENTIFIC, at all. If anything, there is full of LIES in atheism, full of IGNORANCE, and stupidity rejecting all possible proofs, THAT'S IT. What is so logic about that?
     
  20. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Problems...

    Actually, I don’t have a problem with several of Christianity’s main tenets. I believe it can be used towards a good end. But so can many religious and non-religious paradigms.

    Here are a couple of its main failings, in my opinion:

    1. Entirely authoritarian. The Christian paradigm hits upon some definite truths, in my opinion, yet it fails to provide the existent arguments towards these truths. Instead it relies on a feeble and flawed appeal to authority. As such it is a leading proponent of a ubiquitous failing in western society. What passes for education is largely a process of indoctrination. This indoctrination into the acceptance of authority opens a tremendous flaw whereby individuals and groups may manipulate people. It is too easily used as a manipulatable tool of governance as evinced by some of nastier aspects of Christian history. Submission to authority becomes more important than the ethic it proposes.

    2. A failure to adequately identify literal and symbolic passages. The Bible is a rather large and complex work of literature assembled from a large variety of sources over a long period of time. This compendium is presented at face value with no commentary from the authors or from the editors. Thus, we have sections that seem to be presented as factual, historical records mixed with poetry and other symbolic passages with no obvious references as to which is which or the intent of the original work. This opens the door for any number of interpretations which are left entirely up to the individual. Disparate doctrines then refer to the same "authority" (see 1, above) as validation. While I have no problem with this strictly as a piece of literature it becomes problematic when viewed as an authoritative source.

    ~Raithere
     
  21. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    and one more thing, they claim you dont have to be a christian or a believer of God to follow moral values? WHY THEN I DON'T SEE ANY ATHEIST COMMUNITY WHO GATHERS TOGETHER AND DO SOME VOLUNTARY WORK TO HELP THE COMMUNITY AND STARVING PEOPLE IN AFRICA OR INDIA, THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTH BUT shows no actions. MANY OF THEM HOWEVER GATHERED AND PROTEST AND WANTED THE MOTTO "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" REMOVED, THEY ARE SO ACTIVE IN CAUSING POSSIBLE VIOLENCE INSTEAD, WHAT A BUNCH OF LYING HIPOCRITE KIDS.
     
  22. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    Your comments are self-serving and counter-factual. We do. You're just blind to it.

    Secular Humanism, for instance:

    And if I might quote Jesus: Matthew 7:5
    "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

    Care to retract your statement?

    ~Raithere

    (edited to correct a typo)
     
  23. muscleman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    306
    what is there to it? Humanist have done nothing BUT PROTECT GAYAND LESBIAN RIGHTS, RIGHTS of this and that. Those are just words. Im talking about steps of feeding the poor, people who dedicated themselves helping OTHERS TO LIVE, NOT HELPING OTHERS TO KILL THEMSELVES.

    Humanist are so focused on contraception (TO BE A PERVERT AND SUPPORT THE MILLION DOLLAR PORN INDUSTRY) and abortion (IF YOU DONT LIKE THE PERSON, KILL IT, ITS NOT A BABY, ITS A BLOB OF TISSUE, EVEN 6 MONTHS OLD AND 9 MONTHS OLD ARENT HUMANS BUT A BLOB OF TISSUE, SO YOU CAN ABORT IT AND KILL IT). IT ONLY BECOMES A HUMAN IF U WANT IT. BUT IF U DONT WANT IT, THEN ITS NOT HUMAN, MY NEPHEW IS BORN 6 MONTHS OLD, NOW 3 YEARS OLD A HEALTHY KID, AT 6 MONTHS OLD HE IS CONSIDERED "A BLOB OF TISSUE", AND YOU CAN KILL HIM.

    Housing for elderlies? what do you care? YOU SUPPORT EUTHANASIA, AND CALLS IT "CIVIL RIGHTS", YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE, FROM BABIES TO ELDERLIES, IF THEY ARE USELESS, KILL IT.

    ALL THESE YOU DO FOR SELF-GRATIFICATION AND SELF PLEASURE, GREEDINESS, YET YOU CLAIM YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD TO BE GENEROUS KIND AND RESPECTFULL, LIARS. YOU CLAIM OF "RAPE" AS A GOOD REASON FOR ABORTION, WELL GUESS WHAT, 99% OF THE ABORTION DONE ISNT BECAUSE OF RAPE, BUT BECAUSE OF CONVINIENCE AND SELF PLEASURE AND COMFORT, ALL FOR GREED, AND THEN AGAIN YOU CLAIM TO BE KIND AND RESPECTING TO HUMAN LIFE AND GENEROUS, WHAT A LIAR.

    YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO THE COMMUNITY EXCEPT HELP US KILL EACH OTHER FOR THE SAKE OF SELF PLEASURE, THATS IT.
     

Share This Page