Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
Hi Conrad. You wrote,
>>Just a brief reply to your reply. A battlefield full of dead bodies is exactly what I mean by it's all in the head, i.e. subjective. We might not like it as humans, but if we were a couple of vultures what a glorious sight to make the spirits soar!<<
So humanism is only ‘head thought’ and nothing more. It begins and ends with man. True, if you eliminate God, we are no wiser than animals, but include God, we have value and dignity, life has meaning. If a field of flowers is the same as a field of dead bodies then man is devalued and truth ignored. Because we're not “vultures” we know the difference. You won’t admit the difference because your erroneous ‘belief’ that there’s no beauty, ugliness, or truth. But if truth doesn’t exist, how do I even know you are telling the truth? Can ANYTHING be known? You can’t say for sure anything is right or wrong. Why assume Christianity wrong and atheism right? One believes life precious, the other believes abortion and euthanasia is okay.
Stalin had similar “demonstrably false beliefs” with “important social consequences” and millions died. Chesterton's dictum is right, 'When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing they believe in anything'. So atheism is a belief as much as any, you can't escape that fact. You wrote,
>>There seems to be a bit of confusion when you comment that in atheistic evolution there is nothing ultimately right or wrong. Basically correct, science describes the world as it is, without judgement, therefore it cannot find death and suffering good,<<
Are you now telling me humanism works on the principle of making decisions "without judgment”? Science hasn’t proved evolution, yet humanism is based on evolution. Its evolution that demands "death and suffering". Is that why humanism encourages abortion and euthanasia? Humanism is a cold nasty belief, which endorses the taking of life from the innocent and sick, just as evolution - red in tooth and claw.
I'm confused when you claimed certain beliefs “irrational” and others “appropriate”. How can you? If there’s nothing “right or wrong”? That’s the dilemma of humanism. Man of himself can’t set up true standards of justice or values. If one man decides his human view of values is correct and another man decides his view (which is different) is correct, who will decide between them?
Who would decide between the Nazis and the Jewish race in WW2? Each had a set of values, but who was right? The majority? The nicest? The meanest? Science? Without a higher standard of authority to go to, which is God, all of life is based on the values of the majority or a dictator in power. You wrote,
>>I cannot understand the problem that a christian would have with evolution. I understand a large part of christianity, I was confirmed in the Methodist church at the age of 27, all that time I found no conflict between what science was revealing, and my faith. God made the world and all that is in it, and evolution was the way that he created species. I know a large number of christians who feel the same way. Perhaps you can explain the problem?<<
Basically evidence for abiogenesis and evolution is non-existent. True science deals with details, and exactly how at a chemical and molecular level these might have occurred, on this point evolutionary science is silent, but instead prefers to spin stories, which barely reach the level of gross anatomy. The boundaries of real science are not based on speculative theories that are neither tangible nor tested scientifically. Evolution does not even qualify as a scientific theory unless it can provide a creditable explanation of abiogenesis, and evolution in terms of microbiology. It's quite clear from scientists that it has not. You won’t believe Christianity because the evidence is weak? Well, for evolution its non-existent!
Your problem began by accepting a theory, which has no evidence. If it’s a universal law of nature, why is there not one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? Please write and tell me won’t you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ‘missing links’ have not turned up. I’m surprised if you have no knowledge of this.
So science only deals with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. But science will confirm that life comes from pre-existent life alone, not from non-life. It “finds” that even the simplest living cell is so amazing complex the theory Spontaneous Generation is debunked. Scientists marvel at the complexity, design and laws in the world. Our minds understand design, order and laws. This argues that they are the product of a mind (an intelligence with a superior mind to ours) Do we insist on seeing the builder before we believe that the house we are in was built? Is that our criteria for belief? The building is ample proof that there was a builder.
But I suspect no matter what I show you concerning the “problem” of evolution, you will refuse to accept that it's a religion. You don’t want to accept that you have a ‘faith’ because then you would have to admit it is a blind faith. And you would not be able to say it's the right faith. Check out - http://trueorigin.org/index.asp / www.CreationOnTheWeb.com You wrote,
>>Creationism looks like an American import that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Ray's little book is typical of what I mean, quotes out of context, absurd analogies, half-truths, a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method. The list goes on. Surely as an educated person you cannot be convinced by stuff like this?<<
Please list those absurdities, I’ll post them to Ray. But can you be sure about “half-truths”? Then, could there be things totally true? And “creationism... morally bankrupt”? Please write and explain. Like I said, 'I base what I believe on what I do know, not on what I don't know'. Education is the process why many scientists come to reject evolution. We don't need 'faith' to believe in a Creator, all we need is eyes that can see and a brain that works. There's many “well-educated” scientists who reject evolution for scientific reasons. Prof. L Bounoure [President Biological Society Strasbourg] wrote - "...evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" [The Advocate thur,8 March 1984 pg.17].
All evolutionists need do is to come up with one piece of evidence that proves evolution. If evolution is right and creation is nonsense, evolutionists have the media at their disposal to prove to everyone that evolution is true. However, they cannot do this. The evidence overwhelmingly supports exactly what the Bible says. You wrote,
>>The end of your reply is rather long and too jumbled to respond to easily. Basically you seem upset with the idea that humans have to decide things for themselves, and that in the absence of an absolute, divinely imposed, moral code. But of course that is exactly what the theist does, except without the rational thought and anguish of trying to determine the best possible course of action. Because in the absence of God the theist is merely following the dictates of the human leaders of his cult.<<
No, my concern with Humanism is it rejects a good "moral code" for an anti-human belief. It pretends to esteem man above all else but in reality (ie Manifesto 2) it takes away all worth from mankind. It does not solve problems; it creates them. It says, "there are no absolutes" but ironically, this premise becomes the one absolute. So man is devalued below the level God places on him. The word 'theist' has a wide definition, it can apply to people who have all kinds of belief about God. But indeed, its the humanist that has no basis for the “best possible course of action”. You wrote,
>>I might close by explaining my own atheism. Why I do not believe in god, gods, or goddesses. Ray used a typically dubious argument here to prove that no one can be sure there is no god. Namely that you would need a perfect understanding of all that is in the universe to be sure of this. But of course your god is not like that, he is meant to be everywhere, including in that lecture hall on that Saturday night.<<
Ray had a point - Are you absolutely sure there’s no God? Perhaps 50% or 25% sure? Is there any doubt? I also didn’t see any "gods and goddesses" in the "lecture hall". Could it be that God is different? Yes He’s everywhere, but nowhere? What did Ray mean? He was speaking to atheists, (Materialists - the visible universe is all there is). If the Materialist can’t see or touch it, it doesn’t exist. In his mind God must be seen in the clouds or discovered by a man in a white coat. But because he doesn’t know everything he can’t be 100% sure there is no God. You wrote,
>>Christianity makes claims that are essentially historical; the creation, the flood, the exodus, Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. These claims can be analysed by the accepted standards of scholarship, and the evidence for them is then found to be weak.<<
You are wrong here, no one doubts the writings about other aspects of history, why doubt the writings which support Christian theology? The evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming, clearly the lives of the frightened believers were totally transformed after the resurrection. 2000 years later we might argue that we don't believe it, but no one can seriously suggest that the apostles who were alive at the time did not. Having examined similar claims as yours I can say that they are often made because of lack of research. And by those reading very selected literature. You wrote,
>>On this basis I do not belief there is a god - other religions make similar claims, and you will be well aware of their falseness because only your faith is the genuine one. There is a very true saying that the theist does not believe in hundreds of gods, and all the atheist does is merely not believe in an additional one. Of course Ray may be correct; hiding under some stone, on a lonely planet, in some far distant galaxy, may be GOD. But that is not exactly the god you and Ray have in mind! Cheers, Conrad.<<
If lack of research is the basis you don’t “believe”, what can I say? But you say, “Ray may be correct” a backsliding atheist? Imagine if Ray wasn’t sure there was a God. What a laugh! But the theist is pitiful indeed, if he does not know who God is. The good thing about God, is that He’s a God of love and offers eternal life as a free gift (although we don’t deserve it) – are you interested?