Marsha, if God is a god who intelligently designs over the course of eons, he is more like a human engineer than the omnipotent god that we're accustomed to from traditional religion. no? :) He would be just a superintellect, or maybe just an intellect with a lot more time to have developed the technology to bring about the universe as we know it. If he were truly omnipotent he could create by just saying the word, couldn't he/she?
You can't look at intelligent design from a scientific point of view. The fundamental argument for intelligent design is that the universe is too complex to arise naturally. This is an argument from ignorance. There is no evidence for intelligent design, nor is there any valid scientific reasoning behind it. Supposing a creator for complexity necessitates that the creator is more complex, and is in no way an elegant solution, or a rational one.
The late theoretical physicist J.A. Wheeler collaborated with Einstein and Bohr. His students included Feynman and Thorne. Wheeler believed that the universe and all existence reflects the expression of an idea. The quantum wave function, effectively information, is the basis for all existence. One can
look at the intelligence, the information, in the universe from a scientific point of view. That is the skeleton in the closet of quantum physics.
The nature of the universe is important in the discussion of the reality of God. Christians ( and many others of faith) view the universe as a created place, reflecting the idea of One sovereign God. We see the harmonies of the laws, forces, energies, and matter as more than chance occurrences. Science is a wonderful means we use to explore the details of existence. The work of Wheeler and others reveal, & Scriptures say, a Mind underlies all existence. I say this is God's Wisdom.
Right, the harmony of the physical laws is mystifying. Once again your argument is from ignorance: what what we do not know is god.
This is such a vague description that it is ambiguous to all of the gods worshiped by mankind (past, present, and future). This 'god' that explains the physical universe is much different than a personal god, who meddles in the affairs of minuscule humans. (relatively speaking, of course) What makes you think you picked the right one? Subjective personal experience?
Asking me which God is like asking me which gravity. We are subject to the same reality, and the small notion of God that you attack is not the sovereign God who is vastly superior to us. We are "ignorant" of more than we can possibly imagine, but arrogance and hubris are hardly the cranes that will lift humanity toward understanding our place and purpose in the universe. Science and theology are both ways of probing reality, and both point to the same truth, not of small "gods", but of God.
I do not attack a small notion of God. I attack the Christian God, everything that differentiates your God from a formless and indifferent God that is merely a poetic interpretation of the laws of the universe.
Science and theology may attempt to point to the same truth, but they are nothing alike.
I'll ask again: What makes you think you picked the right God? Subjective personal experience?
You can quote scientists, but I cannot? The conflicted atheist Haldane is the very one who noted "the curious limitation of finite minds, and the mystery of life." I AM going to keep THINKING about the informed opinions, beliefs, and research of major scientists. I appreciate them & believe that an educated, scientifically literate population is a good thing. The finely tuned interplay of laws in the goldilocks zone constitute a miracle that makes me joyfully Ok. You don't have to worry.
Instead of thinking about what the famous or well know scientists believe, and interpreting that, just look at the data. The raw data. Its math, consequence, governed by laws that are cold and have no concern for us. Hence the death and suffering and random indifference in this world. Its ok though. You'll be ok.
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
Your complaint was that I support my arguments quoting philosophy rather than science. I quoted Dennett because philosophy matters in science, & I advocate such a perspective. I intend discussions in this thread be inclusive so anyone may join. You infer, without basis, that I limit my reading/exposure to ideas. Such chauvinistic paternalism is atavistic. Dennett's opinions on philo of science are of worth & I am glad to have the quote so that readers might be drawn to the topic .
I completely agree with Daniel Dennett's statement: "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science. There is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
You have a propensity towards quote mining it seems. Can you find a quote that supports examining the universe entirely by misunderstanding the statements of real scientists and misconstruing them in a way that supports a Christian agenda?
Dan was almost cerainly not referring to any philosophy that is not logically consistent with the evidence obtained through scientific method. The rational interpretation of this concept is that scientific endeavor exists within the realm of logical philosophy that works in accordance with new learning/discovery. Ex. Stem cell research shows evidence that indicated the potential of substantial human benefit. The philosophy that follows would indicate a resulting disposition towards further..
stem cell research. Typically in Dennett's writings and speeches, he expresses a feeling of wonder and awe of the universe as we have discovered it to actually be, versus how we might want it to be.
That would be the most likely type of funtional philosophy he is referring to. At least as I see it. I will make the assumption that I have listened to more of his presentations than you. Correct me if you believe this to be wrong.
I actually have not made any assumptions about you, an anonymous person writing in response to my BLOG.Why don't you share your info if you are a public person with special insight into Dennett's thinking? Are you perhaps one of The Four Horsemen? "Dan's" friend? It may surprise you that my admiration for Steven Weinberg & Dennett can be genuine, even if I do not slavishly cling to everything they say.Nor do I reject out of hand the ideas of people with a different worldview than my own.
Notice I carefully worded my assumption of the meaning of Dennetts statement. I certainly do not consider my insight into Daniels thinking special. In fact, I simply restated a point that Dan has made on at least one, perhaps several occasions through media that is available to most. To avoid making any more assertions about any philosophy of Dennett, let me once again point out that while subjective philosophy has a function in science, those philosophies are not universal for all.
It may quite possibly be that the foundational philosophies of science may help guide those performing observation/experimentation/etc., I have no reason to doubt that. I suppose my new question is, "Why apply any statement in the philosophy of science in the support of an intervening god, when the science itself is not consistent with that view." Logic in its pure form is not subjective/relative. While you may think that it might be a nice idea for god to be real (perhaps I might too)..
that, (along with subsequent behaviors that are exhibited in accordance with that subjective belief) unfortunatelys, is subjective philosophy that does not logically follow any evidence that have ever been obtained through science.
Let me make clear my disposition towards you since it may not yet be. I am in no way upset, angry, etc. I am quite interested in your view of science and the statements of famous scientists. It is quite different from my own...
The biggest curiosity that I have is why you spend what I perceive as a disproportionate amount of time dealing with the philosophies of individual scientists, rather than the "philosophy of science", and the processes involved in science. I fully understand why I focus on the latter. One wonderful benefit of being myself is the inherent understanding of myself. I don't have that convenience with regards to your thinking, so I must ask questions.
I am certainly a "non-Christian" as you describe in your video. Yet your persistence to veiw the concepts we are discussing in such a narrow way is quite a turnoff.
I have not spoken disparagingly of non-Christians. Nor did I, in discussing theism vs. atheism, insist on limiting the talk to particular parameters. The existence of God is of ultimate concern to us all. If you read my books, you'd see that I say God is not the cultural captive of any people. If you are turned off by the fact I happen to be a Christian, that's your prerogative, but there is nothing narrow in the view that there is an accessible transcendant reality.
I did not accuse you of speaking disparagingly of non-Christians. I simply clarified my belief,or absence thereof. Your parameters seem limited in that the quotes from scientists that you actually do use, are those that represent philosophies, not science.I will concede that the existence of god is of concern to people if he does indeed exist. "Ultimate concern", as you describe above is an opinion, in no way supported by any evidence. Perhaps you should have worded it, "ultimately of concern".
Nonetheless, there is no real evidence that belief in a god will matter in any possible dimension or afterlife. Since the physicists concede that the observed universe operates in a way that is completely void of any suggestion of post big bang divine intervention, how exactly do you conclude that the existence of a god is of ultimate concern. If you look at our understanding of the universe objectively, the logical conclusion is that if god exists, he does not care if we realize it...
Our understanding of the universe is not a valid response to this problem. We understand the mathematics behind the laws of physics, yet do not understand what actually causes and object to fall towards earth. Let's put it this way. If you think you understand quantum theory, you dont understand quantum theory. There is nothing about our understanding of the cosmos that is in any way supernatural. In fact, some would argue that our understanding is quite simple, considering what we can't..
yet explain. Here is what I am disappointed with... I saw your channel, with references to science and scientists, yet, when exploring the content, I have yet to observe any real science being addressed. I don't mind that you are a Christian. I'm troubled by the lack of science that subsequently led to subjective philosophy. You have your right to post it. You are perfectly entitled. Yet I retain my feeling of being turned off. I hope you can understand. Thank you for your time and energy.
If you are trying to express a belief that there may be substantial benefits in believing in a biblical God while investigating the universe scientifically, then I think you are wasting your time, and further, encouraging others to do the same.
Evolution is a fact. Survey any and all credible biologists that you want (I somehow doubt you will). If you are suggesting that we, as a civilization, allow for the possibility of an "originator" of the universe, that would have set forth the laws of physics, then I find you less irritating (although you would have to answer the question, "What created that?)".
Darwin was one of the most reasonable men who ever lived and welcomed discussion. Since I do not know you, I'll refrain from guessing what you are likely to read, but will comment on question, "Who made God?' How is that a trump question? We can ask, "Who made the super atom?" Not knowing God's or the atom's origin does not negate possibilities. Re :Evolution Variation & adaptability are essential to life, but origination is a different question. See Virchow's comments to Darwin.
I apologize if i gave the impression that "Who made god?" is a trump question. In fact, my attempt was to portray it as a relatively pointless question, at least at this point. As for what I am likely to read, I will point out that I choose to stick to those texts which are regarded as being cridible in the scientific community, with full documented peer review. Also, perhaps you don't have a full understanding of modern boilogy. The reason I question your understanding...
is that you described "origination" as being an entirely different question from the explanation of all of the variety of life. However, credible scientists explain that those molecules that eventually led to the origin of DNA would have evolved through the same type of process (Natural Selection) that all (nearly) living things adapt by. If you are describing the origin of those molecules/atoms, then, as before, I find your current argument a bit less muddled. However, there are certainly-
Marsha, if my understanding of the assertions of intelligent design is consistent with yours, then you are not going about this very scientifically. Science clearly shows us that it is a fact that living things evolve. Irreducible complexity, being the primary argument of ID as I understand it, falls in the face of scientific evidence. The eye, as commonly used by people expressing similar views to yours has been shown to be completely viable in many stages of evolutionary development.
Sir James Jeans's quote "the universe is beginning to look more like a great thought than a great machine," is often quoted, but his body of writings on science & philosophy captivates me. This may seem off point in answering you, but check him out to see the connections. I am intrigued by the big picture. All the rest are details as EInstein said. Biology & irreducible complexity are not the heart of my argument. I can't contemplate physics without reference to thought behind the order.
TO TWCGroup: See my remarks on Thomas Kuhn. Don't revolutionary shifts in scientific views occur? It's not "unscientific" believe in a creator and sustainer.The label, "creationist" often implies belief in a young earth and six day creation. That's a limited view of what it means for the universe to have been created. I think MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder's The Hidden Face of God captures my view. I do not back away from the charge that I believe in a Creator as do many scientists.
What does a belief in anything have to do with science?
I can say:"Well, I have a strong belief that the theory of gravity is correct." But that doesn't do anything to support the theory of gravity, it's just an opinion.
By all means Marsha, run Intelligent Design through the Scientific method, and then you may claim to be practicing science. Otherwise stop branding your religion as science.
I am not branding religion as science. Religious worldviews benefit from science . As for beliefs and science, without a scientific imagination, a suspicion or belief about what might be true, a holy curiosity as Einstein called it, what would ever spark inquiry and testing? The deeply religious Newton, in investigating gravity, certainly was motivated by what he believed might be true. You should read Newton's theological writings. They're fascinating.
Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions & Steven Weinberg's criticism of it "The Revolution that Didn't Happen" provide a rich framework for thinking about science. My question to critics is " Why is Topsy's view, "we just growed" more scientific than the view that the universe was designed & it's comprehensibility a miracle?" You can't escape the FACTS that quantum physics encounters consciousness or that Kaluza-Klein equations have explanatory power.
Can you please explain to me how jumping to the conclusion that an 'intelligent agent' created the universe and everything in it is science? Without mentioning something that neither of us fully understand like quantum physics or Kaluza-Klein equations.
No one"fully" understands quantum physics, but how are we to have a discussion on God and science and leave the science out? The implications of Quantum physics are relevant & point to consciousness & possibilities for intelligences other than human. Kaluza Klein equations are highly relevant in theoretical work on other dimensions. I DO have the math background (completed doc. studies in quantitative analysis) but math isn't an esoteric language accessible to a select few. These aren't leaps.
How are we to have a discussion of science and include god? God is a man-made myth. If there was something to suggest that god actually existed you wouldn't need to have faith. God is not in any way related to science because science only ever tests and comes to conclusions based on tangible evidence.
Faith is about relationships and is the subject of theology. Science asks questions about origins and the nature of nature. Darwin himself preferred to be called an agnostic rather than an atheist due to wrestling with First Causes. Myths abound about many real topics, & of course there are myths about God, but to say God is a man-made myth and there is no evidence is your opinion. Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, and a stellar line up of top modern scientists disagree with you.
As long as you're seeking an intelligent designer(God?) you'll find him. You'll seek out anything and everything to interpret as you see fit to explain the idea of intelligent design.
But do you see what you are doing here? You're drawing a conclusion and claiming that your hypothesis is correct AND THEN looking for facts to support your hypothesis. That is the EXACT opposite of the scientific method and therefore holds no scientific merit whatsoever.
1 Ask a question(Did God Create the entire universe and everything in it?)
2 Do background research(As you can see the idea of God already comes to a screeching halt because there is no evidence for the existence of God, let alone God creating the entire universe.)
Your view is chauvinistic & dismissive. Distinguished theologians and scientists of the International Society for Science and Religions, an org. begun by John Polkinghorne, promote interdisciplinary multifaith inquiry . Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins book, The Language of God melds faith and scientific insights nicely. I am a person of Faith who views intellectual wisdom as a connection to the God who wants us to know things. It's a myth that science has pronounced against God.
Thank you for the list of physicists, who according to you, are not trying to prop up any particular religious views. These are the types of physicists that I need to familiarize myself with, especially when they place evidence ahead of self interest. I will start my research tonight.BTW, I did not intend to insult any Pygmy by comparing myself to their noble class. I would have been more accurate if I described my intellectual prowess on the level of Australopithicus Africanus "Brooklynaeus."
Epistemology asks, how do we know what we know? My views may be severely limited, in many areas, but my question to you was based on your statement that ID is a question for science to investigate and hopefully give some type of answer. Additionally when you use the term "God", which "God" are you referring to? Personally, at this stage of my evolution, I cannot wrap my pygmy brain around the concept of a God or Gods,much less talk about how this uncreated spirit "thinks" and wants us to behave!
Your original questions were good questions, and I did not intend to offend with my answer, Only 500 characters are allowed for the answer in this space, so replies are truncated. My point is that to wait for science alone to inform our thinking limits us. As curious beings,we observe and learn in myriad ways. This was not a shot at you. I want to point out that Pygmies,of central and western Africa, are not restricted in their intellectual gifts either. ..Continued in next post.
Science is investigating intelligence and consciousness in the universe in a promising fashion. Read some of the phenomenal works by physicists like Gerald Schroeder, Brian Greene, Bruce Rosenblum and Frederick Kuttner. You'll be fascinated. These researchers aren't trying to prop up any particular religious views. We all benefit by being cognizant of and thinking about the things they describe. The existence of God is not the idea of local deity .
I appreciate your passion for your postion Marsha, but here is one question (I have quiet a few); If the concept of intelligent design is, as you stated, a question for scientists to investigate and hopefully give some type of answer, why do you seem to express an insistence on a Christian designer God? Why not wait for science to interrogate and invesigate all claims regarding ID and in the mean time remain neutral and objective? Does your Christian perspective inhibit you doing this?
Inquiry is not limited to one discipline. Science happens to be one appropriate discipline to delve into the nature of reality, but it is not the task of science to replace theological or metaphysical study. Too many scientists, however, aren't open to inquiry about God, and many pronounce in favor of atheism. Meanwhile, important ideas are intentionally ridiculed, as people confuse God with religion. Isn't your view of how one should be informed severely limited? What does epistemology ask?
I am thoroughly familiar w/ Ken Miller's brilliant work in evolutionary biology and I am a student of Darwin's. His ideas are revolutionary, some right, some wrong , I doubt that you would agree with him that women are less intelligent than men or ascribe to other anthropological characterizations that he proposed. As Ken Miller stresses, everything in science is open to meaningful questions. A mind behind the design of the universe is not wishful thinking, and Einstein recognized this.
"women are less intelligent than men... he proposed" Evidence?
You are not fooling anyone with this Pantheistic, Deistic and Theistic confusion. If there is a Pantheistic or Pandeistic god, there is more evidence it is cruel, capricious and uncaring. What is the ID of disease creating microbes? They are well designed to kill poor innocent babies.
Darwin's views on women's intelligence are widely known. Read The Descent of Man and find an embarassment of such views plus fuel for biological racism. Darwin was a brilliant scientist but his work is not Holy Writ and is subject to criticism and correction. Look, there are dangers and wonders in the universe. Our intelligence allows us to take prophylactic actions to guard against many dangers, including diseases. Human intelligence reflects a greater intelligence we've barely tapped.
Sorry, I thought you were indicting Miller as sexist.
Nobody worships Darwin. Why the strawman? His observations & scientific ideas are important not the 19th century cultural norms. Don't you think the same way for the U.S. founding fathers? Science has heroes not prophets and is constantly evolving. Physics and Biology pHds today have a better understanding of their science than Darwin or Einstein.
Few PhD's compare to Einstein, but you are right that science constantly evolves. Re: Darwin: His strict views on quantitative variation in nature have been modified, but the Malthusian models fundamental to Natural Selection continue to infect science. Ironically, the Rev. Malthus' ideas are at the heart of Darwinism. Gregor Mendel's work on heredity, was free of such influences. Science has heroes, but as with Aristotle vs, Democritus on atoms, we may follow the wrong opinion for a time.
I was had as well and it hurt for me to admit this. But for the sake of goodness and truth, I had to.
The tower of babel is FOOLISH to believe in and ONCE you come out of your box that you were brainwashed to be put into, you will realize that good IS to break free from bronze age thinking and help the Earth become a kinder and gentler place.
Be convicted for truth NOT comfort of your belief...
You seem a genuine person. When you start realizing the charlatans that surround you, the false preachers and false teachers, you may just begin to realize that you MUST for the sake of truth and honesty realize that you are wrong.
There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that "Jesus" ever existed. Can you honestly tell me that you believe a man shot out into space without a space suit?
STOP trying to promote lies that have been told for the last few thousand years and realize that you've been had.
There is more evidence that Jesus lived, than that Pythagoras lived. Einstein was "enthralled by the Nazarene." Emerald, there is no conflict in the truth and ideally, both science and theology are about delving into truth. Jesus advocated human enlightenment and knowing truth, He advocated the kinder, gentler approach to each other that you mention in your second set of comments. Read N.T. Wright's SImply Christian. The teachings of Jesus often conflict with popular religion.
You have evidence that Jesus was more likely to exist than Pythagoras? Why don't you take over Bart Ehrman's University position with this revolutionary historical knowledge?
Theology is all about ignorance. In Genesis, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (translated as ALL Knowledge, both good & evil) in which Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit of is clear evidence.
If you care to contact Dr. Erhman directly, he might take the time to explain my statement to you. I don't question the historicity of Pythagoras, but point out the dearth of "evidence." Pythagoras lived. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change, a book to which I contributed is respected internationally. Not many people, even if they disagree with my views, deride my scholarship as you seem to.
Nice vid! It's very clear that those people who comment your vid haven't even learnt any science before they posted on your vid. They don't know what intelligent design is and still they claim that they know.
But the sad truth is that many people don't want to listen. Evolution is not at all proved, it's just the "best natural reason", which doesn't mean it's true. Scientific evidence proves a young earth (yes it does, really).
I wonder how much evidence it would take to convince you... Have you just not bothered to look at all of the evidence or were you just told by someone you respect that there is no evidence?
Studied, just as all other people who first believed in the evolution theory but then realized that it is not true.
Marsha, I suggest that you remove the ability to comment and rank your video, I doubt that you will get any constructive feedback from the ignorant people of the world.
Great. I would be very interested in reviewing the scientific evidence for a young earth. I would also be very interested in the scientific evidence for creation. The evidence for evolution is out there in the public domain. It can be questioned. I feel it only fair to question your assertions don't you? So please, for the sake of discussion, provide the evidence for what you say
I am not a young earth proponent and have never claimed to be. I have also not taken any special pains to argue evolution one way or the other, since my focus is on physics. I do see problems within modern evolutionary theory, but of the same type that VIrchow mentioned to Darwin in their correspondence. Many things Darwin wrote are evident, others still open to investigation. Physicists rarely tell each other there is nothing else to learn. Why must biologists? Darwin would not approve.
Nothing else to learn? Within the realm of evolution, there are enless possibilities of new learning that can, and hopefully will be obtained. I also certainly would not approve of any biologist that told another that there is nothing more to learn. Why so much focus on Darwin? Are you familiar with the scientific method? It is that process, not the particular man that is responsible for the elegance of our understanding of evolution.
we know much more about evolution and its mechanisms since darwins time and we are still investigating the mechanisms for evolution. Evolution is not in dispute. The only disputes in science regarding evolution are regarding the mechanisms for evolution. ID can not ever be taken seriously without evidence. Please provide it. If evolution was magically disproved tomorrow this would not mean that life is the product of an intelligent designer. You have to provide proof.
.Ironically , "It's not even a hypothesis" reflects Wolfgang Pauli's famous, "That's not right. That's not even wrong." Pauli, a truly gifted scientist to whom the world is indebted,was deeply concerned with reconciling science and spirituality. I say without rancor, read Pauli. There are insightful ideas, and substantive questions and direction that can guide debates about God and science, especially physics. My concerns are not based on "myths." Reality is more complex than we know.
I think Marsha has more sense than to think that evolution isn't correct. DeMovieMakerRS, you aren't doing her any favors by suggesting that ID is what she believes over evolution. Just because she's christian doesn't mean she believes in junk science.
What's tragic, Marsha, is that you so completely and sincerely embrace PURE MYTH. You are completely hamstrung (deluded) by pure fiction. I fear you are a lost cause. It's due to a weak mind.
I am not certain it's due to a weak mind. As she said in this video, she has personal evidence. Perhaps a vision or similar event. I don't know, but it's not fair to say that a person has a weak mind when they have an illusion that appears to be real. Back that up with a religion as well established as christianity and you can see how the person won't be budged from their belief.
Do you think that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in school instead of evolution and do you believe the evolution did not happen in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary? How old do you think the universe is? There are many questions that need to be answered and to put the answers down to 'God did it' is to lazily fob off the work required to actually find out something for yourself.
So tell me? How old do you think the earth is? Was there a global flood that covered the top of mount Everest? Did the human race get their different languages as a punishment for building a tall building? If you deny these Biblical events then how can you tell which Biblical events and stories to believe?
Marsha, if God is a god who intelligently designs over the course of eons, he is more like a human engineer than the omnipotent god that we're accustomed to from traditional religion. no? :) He would be just a superintellect, or maybe just an intellect with a lot more time to have developed the technology to bring about the universe as we know it. If he were truly omnipotent he could create by just saying the word, couldn't he/she?
anselmiano 2 years ago
You can't look at intelligent design from a scientific point of view. The fundamental argument for intelligent design is that the universe is too complex to arise naturally. This is an argument from ignorance. There is no evidence for intelligent design, nor is there any valid scientific reasoning behind it. Supposing a creator for complexity necessitates that the creator is more complex, and is in no way an elegant solution, or a rational one.
matt1746 2 years ago
The late theoretical physicist J.A. Wheeler collaborated with Einstein and Bohr. His students included Feynman and Thorne. Wheeler believed that the universe and all existence reflects the expression of an idea. The quantum wave function, effectively information, is the basis for all existence. One can
look at the intelligence, the information, in the universe from a scientific point of view. That is the skeleton in the closet of quantum physics.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Please explain to me what this has to do with the Christian god, or any other god for that matter.
matt1746 2 years ago
The nature of the universe is important in the discussion of the reality of God. Christians ( and many others of faith) view the universe as a created place, reflecting the idea of One sovereign God. We see the harmonies of the laws, forces, energies, and matter as more than chance occurrences. Science is a wonderful means we use to explore the details of existence. The work of Wheeler and others reveal, & Scriptures say, a Mind underlies all existence. I say this is God's Wisdom.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Right, the harmony of the physical laws is mystifying. Once again your argument is from ignorance: what what we do not know is god.
This is such a vague description that it is ambiguous to all of the gods worshiped by mankind (past, present, and future). This 'god' that explains the physical universe is much different than a personal god, who meddles in the affairs of minuscule humans. (relatively speaking, of course) What makes you think you picked the right one? Subjective personal experience?
matt1746 2 years ago
Asking me which God is like asking me which gravity. We are subject to the same reality, and the small notion of God that you attack is not the sovereign God who is vastly superior to us. We are "ignorant" of more than we can possibly imagine, but arrogance and hubris are hardly the cranes that will lift humanity toward understanding our place and purpose in the universe. Science and theology are both ways of probing reality, and both point to the same truth, not of small "gods", but of God.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
There is only one force of gravity.
There are Many Gods.
Now that that's established...
I do not attack a small notion of God. I attack the Christian God, everything that differentiates your God from a formless and indifferent God that is merely a poetic interpretation of the laws of the universe.
Science and theology may attempt to point to the same truth, but they are nothing alike.
I'll ask again: What makes you think you picked the right God? Subjective personal experience?
matt1746 2 years ago
You can quote scientists, but I cannot? The conflicted atheist Haldane is the very one who noted "the curious limitation of finite minds, and the mystery of life." I AM going to keep THINKING about the informed opinions, beliefs, and research of major scientists. I appreciate them & believe that an educated, scientifically literate population is a good thing. The finely tuned interplay of laws in the goldilocks zone constitute a miracle that makes me joyfully Ok. You don't have to worry.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Instead of thinking about what the famous or well know scientists believe, and interpreting that, just look at the data. The raw data. Its math, consequence, governed by laws that are cold and have no concern for us. Hence the death and suffering and random indifference in this world. Its ok though. You'll be ok.
jack19790 2 years ago
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
-- J.B.S. Haldane
jack19790 2 years ago
Your complaint was that I support my arguments quoting philosophy rather than science. I quoted Dennett because philosophy matters in science, & I advocate such a perspective. I intend discussions in this thread be inclusive so anyone may join. You infer, without basis, that I limit my reading/exposure to ideas. Such chauvinistic paternalism is atavistic. Dennett's opinions on philo of science are of worth & I am glad to have the quote so that readers might be drawn to the topic .
MarshaERH 2 years ago
I completely agree with Daniel Dennett's statement: "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science. There is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
MarshaERH 2 years ago
You have a propensity towards quote mining it seems. Can you find a quote that supports examining the universe entirely by misunderstanding the statements of real scientists and misconstruing them in a way that supports a Christian agenda?
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Dan was almost cerainly not referring to any philosophy that is not logically consistent with the evidence obtained through scientific method. The rational interpretation of this concept is that scientific endeavor exists within the realm of logical philosophy that works in accordance with new learning/discovery. Ex. Stem cell research shows evidence that indicated the potential of substantial human benefit. The philosophy that follows would indicate a resulting disposition towards further..
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
stem cell research. Typically in Dennett's writings and speeches, he expresses a feeling of wonder and awe of the universe as we have discovered it to actually be, versus how we might want it to be.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
That would be the most likely type of funtional philosophy he is referring to. At least as I see it. I will make the assumption that I have listened to more of his presentations than you. Correct me if you believe this to be wrong.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
I actually have not made any assumptions about you, an anonymous person writing in response to my BLOG.Why don't you share your info if you are a public person with special insight into Dennett's thinking? Are you perhaps one of The Four Horsemen? "Dan's" friend? It may surprise you that my admiration for Steven Weinberg & Dennett can be genuine, even if I do not slavishly cling to everything they say.Nor do I reject out of hand the ideas of people with a different worldview than my own.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Notice I carefully worded my assumption of the meaning of Dennetts statement. I certainly do not consider my insight into Daniels thinking special. In fact, I simply restated a point that Dan has made on at least one, perhaps several occasions through media that is available to most. To avoid making any more assertions about any philosophy of Dennett, let me once again point out that while subjective philosophy has a function in science, those philosophies are not universal for all.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
It may quite possibly be that the foundational philosophies of science may help guide those performing observation/experimentation/etc., I have no reason to doubt that. I suppose my new question is, "Why apply any statement in the philosophy of science in the support of an intervening god, when the science itself is not consistent with that view." Logic in its pure form is not subjective/relative. While you may think that it might be a nice idea for god to be real (perhaps I might too)..
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
that, (along with subsequent behaviors that are exhibited in accordance with that subjective belief) unfortunatelys, is subjective philosophy that does not logically follow any evidence that have ever been obtained through science.
Let me make clear my disposition towards you since it may not yet be. I am in no way upset, angry, etc. I am quite interested in your view of science and the statements of famous scientists. It is quite different from my own...
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
The biggest curiosity that I have is why you spend what I perceive as a disproportionate amount of time dealing with the philosophies of individual scientists, rather than the "philosophy of science", and the processes involved in science. I fully understand why I focus on the latter. One wonderful benefit of being myself is the inherent understanding of myself. I don't have that convenience with regards to your thinking, so I must ask questions.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
I am certainly a "non-Christian" as you describe in your video. Yet your persistence to veiw the concepts we are discussing in such a narrow way is quite a turnoff.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
I have not spoken disparagingly of non-Christians. Nor did I, in discussing theism vs. atheism, insist on limiting the talk to particular parameters. The existence of God is of ultimate concern to us all. If you read my books, you'd see that I say God is not the cultural captive of any people. If you are turned off by the fact I happen to be a Christian, that's your prerogative, but there is nothing narrow in the view that there is an accessible transcendant reality.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
I did not accuse you of speaking disparagingly of non-Christians. I simply clarified my belief,or absence thereof. Your parameters seem limited in that the quotes from scientists that you actually do use, are those that represent philosophies, not science.I will concede that the existence of god is of concern to people if he does indeed exist. "Ultimate concern", as you describe above is an opinion, in no way supported by any evidence. Perhaps you should have worded it, "ultimately of concern".
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Nonetheless, there is no real evidence that belief in a god will matter in any possible dimension or afterlife. Since the physicists concede that the observed universe operates in a way that is completely void of any suggestion of post big bang divine intervention, how exactly do you conclude that the existence of a god is of ultimate concern. If you look at our understanding of the universe objectively, the logical conclusion is that if god exists, he does not care if we realize it...
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Our understanding of the universe is not a valid response to this problem. We understand the mathematics behind the laws of physics, yet do not understand what actually causes and object to fall towards earth. Let's put it this way. If you think you understand quantum theory, you dont understand quantum theory. There is nothing about our understanding of the cosmos that is in any way supernatural. In fact, some would argue that our understanding is quite simple, considering what we can't..
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
yet explain. Here is what I am disappointed with... I saw your channel, with references to science and scientists, yet, when exploring the content, I have yet to observe any real science being addressed. I don't mind that you are a Christian. I'm troubled by the lack of science that subsequently led to subjective philosophy. You have your right to post it. You are perfectly entitled. Yet I retain my feeling of being turned off. I hope you can understand. Thank you for your time and energy.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
If you are trying to express a belief that there may be substantial benefits in believing in a biblical God while investigating the universe scientifically, then I think you are wasting your time, and further, encouraging others to do the same.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact. Survey any and all credible biologists that you want (I somehow doubt you will). If you are suggesting that we, as a civilization, allow for the possibility of an "originator" of the universe, that would have set forth the laws of physics, then I find you less irritating (although you would have to answer the question, "What created that?)".
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Darwin was one of the most reasonable men who ever lived and welcomed discussion. Since I do not know you, I'll refrain from guessing what you are likely to read, but will comment on question, "Who made God?' How is that a trump question? We can ask, "Who made the super atom?" Not knowing God's or the atom's origin does not negate possibilities. Re :Evolution Variation & adaptability are essential to life, but origination is a different question. See Virchow's comments to Darwin.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
I apologize if i gave the impression that "Who made god?" is a trump question. In fact, my attempt was to portray it as a relatively pointless question, at least at this point. As for what I am likely to read, I will point out that I choose to stick to those texts which are regarded as being cridible in the scientific community, with full documented peer review. Also, perhaps you don't have a full understanding of modern boilogy. The reason I question your understanding...
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
is that you described "origination" as being an entirely different question from the explanation of all of the variety of life. However, credible scientists explain that those molecules that eventually led to the origin of DNA would have evolved through the same type of process (Natural Selection) that all (nearly) living things adapt by. If you are describing the origin of those molecules/atoms, then, as before, I find your current argument a bit less muddled. However, there are certainly-
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Comment removed
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Comment removed
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Marsha, if my understanding of the assertions of intelligent design is consistent with yours, then you are not going about this very scientifically. Science clearly shows us that it is a fact that living things evolve. Irreducible complexity, being the primary argument of ID as I understand it, falls in the face of scientific evidence. The eye, as commonly used by people expressing similar views to yours has been shown to be completely viable in many stages of evolutionary development.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
Sir James Jeans's quote "the universe is beginning to look more like a great thought than a great machine," is often quoted, but his body of writings on science & philosophy captivates me. This may seem off point in answering you, but check him out to see the connections. I am intrigued by the big picture. All the rest are details as EInstein said. Biology & irreducible complexity are not the heart of my argument. I can't contemplate physics without reference to thought behind the order.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
TO TWCGroup: See my remarks on Thomas Kuhn. Don't revolutionary shifts in scientific views occur? It's not "unscientific" believe in a creator and sustainer.The label, "creationist" often implies belief in a young earth and six day creation. That's a limited view of what it means for the universe to have been created. I think MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder's The Hidden Face of God captures my view. I do not back away from the charge that I believe in a Creator as do many scientists.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
What does a belief in anything have to do with science?
I can say:"Well, I have a strong belief that the theory of gravity is correct." But that doesn't do anything to support the theory of gravity, it's just an opinion.
By all means Marsha, run Intelligent Design through the Scientific method, and then you may claim to be practicing science. Otherwise stop branding your religion as science.
TWCGroup 2 years ago
I am not branding religion as science. Religious worldviews benefit from science . As for beliefs and science, without a scientific imagination, a suspicion or belief about what might be true, a holy curiosity as Einstein called it, what would ever spark inquiry and testing? The deeply religious Newton, in investigating gravity, certainly was motivated by what he believed might be true. You should read Newton's theological writings. They're fascinating.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions & Steven Weinberg's criticism of it "The Revolution that Didn't Happen" provide a rich framework for thinking about science. My question to critics is " Why is Topsy's view, "we just growed" more scientific than the view that the universe was designed & it's comprehensibility a miracle?" You can't escape the FACTS that quantum physics encounters consciousness or that Kaluza-Klein equations have explanatory power.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Can you please explain to me how jumping to the conclusion that an 'intelligent agent' created the universe and everything in it is science? Without mentioning something that neither of us fully understand like quantum physics or Kaluza-Klein equations.
TWCGroup 2 years ago
No one"fully" understands quantum physics, but how are we to have a discussion on God and science and leave the science out? The implications of Quantum physics are relevant & point to consciousness & possibilities for intelligences other than human. Kaluza Klein equations are highly relevant in theoretical work on other dimensions. I DO have the math background (completed doc. studies in quantitative analysis) but math isn't an esoteric language accessible to a select few. These aren't leaps.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
How are we to have a discussion of science and include god? God is a man-made myth. If there was something to suggest that god actually existed you wouldn't need to have faith. God is not in any way related to science because science only ever tests and comes to conclusions based on tangible evidence.
TWCGroup 2 years ago
Faith is about relationships and is the subject of theology. Science asks questions about origins and the nature of nature. Darwin himself preferred to be called an agnostic rather than an atheist due to wrestling with First Causes. Myths abound about many real topics, & of course there are myths about God, but to say God is a man-made myth and there is no evidence is your opinion. Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, and a stellar line up of top modern scientists disagree with you.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
As long as you're seeking an intelligent designer(God?) you'll find him. You'll seek out anything and everything to interpret as you see fit to explain the idea of intelligent design.
But do you see what you are doing here? You're drawing a conclusion and claiming that your hypothesis is correct AND THEN looking for facts to support your hypothesis. That is the EXACT opposite of the scientific method and therefore holds no scientific merit whatsoever.
TWCGroup 2 years ago
Scientific method:
1 Ask a question(Did God Create the entire universe and everything in it?)
2 Do background research(As you can see the idea of God already comes to a screeching halt because there is no evidence for the existence of God, let alone God creating the entire universe.)
3 Construct a hypothesis
4Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
5 Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6 Report your results
TWCGroup 2 years ago
Christian Method:
1 Report you results (God created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE exactly as it is and everything in it)
2 Analyze data that supports this conclusion
3 Don't ask any questions(You must have faith!)
TWCGroup 2 years ago
Your view is chauvinistic & dismissive. Distinguished theologians and scientists of the International Society for Science and Religions, an org. begun by John Polkinghorne, promote interdisciplinary multifaith inquiry . Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins book, The Language of God melds faith and scientific insights nicely. I am a person of Faith who views intellectual wisdom as a connection to the God who wants us to know things. It's a myth that science has pronounced against God.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
It's not my 'view' it's the scientific method, how do you 'dismiss' the basis of science and then go on to say that science supports faith???
You can't dismiss the scientific method and then promote science!
You just want to support anything that you think 'proves' that God exists and that he/she/it created the universe.
ID is nothing more than creationism and it has been debunked several times in several different scientific discussions.
TWCGroup 2 years ago
Thank you for the list of physicists, who according to you, are not trying to prop up any particular religious views. These are the types of physicists that I need to familiarize myself with, especially when they place evidence ahead of self interest. I will start my research tonight.BTW, I did not intend to insult any Pygmy by comparing myself to their noble class. I would have been more accurate if I described my intellectual prowess on the level of Australopithicus Africanus "Brooklynaeus."
1skepticalbrother 2 years ago
Epistemology asks, how do we know what we know? My views may be severely limited, in many areas, but my question to you was based on your statement that ID is a question for science to investigate and hopefully give some type of answer. Additionally when you use the term "God", which "God" are you referring to? Personally, at this stage of my evolution, I cannot wrap my pygmy brain around the concept of a God or Gods,much less talk about how this uncreated spirit "thinks" and wants us to behave!
1skepticalbrother 2 years ago
Your original questions were good questions, and I did not intend to offend with my answer, Only 500 characters are allowed for the answer in this space, so replies are truncated. My point is that to wait for science alone to inform our thinking limits us. As curious beings,we observe and learn in myriad ways. This was not a shot at you. I want to point out that Pygmies,of central and western Africa, are not restricted in their intellectual gifts either. ..Continued in next post.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Science is investigating intelligence and consciousness in the universe in a promising fashion. Read some of the phenomenal works by physicists like Gerald Schroeder, Brian Greene, Bruce Rosenblum and Frederick Kuttner. You'll be fascinated. These researchers aren't trying to prop up any particular religious views. We all benefit by being cognizant of and thinking about the things they describe. The existence of God is not the idea of local deity .
MarshaERH 2 years ago
I appreciate your passion for your postion Marsha, but here is one question (I have quiet a few); If the concept of intelligent design is, as you stated, a question for scientists to investigate and hopefully give some type of answer, why do you seem to express an insistence on a Christian designer God? Why not wait for science to interrogate and invesigate all claims regarding ID and in the mean time remain neutral and objective? Does your Christian perspective inhibit you doing this?
1skepticalbrother 2 years ago
Inquiry is not limited to one discipline. Science happens to be one appropriate discipline to delve into the nature of reality, but it is not the task of science to replace theological or metaphysical study. Too many scientists, however, aren't open to inquiry about God, and many pronounce in favor of atheism. Meanwhile, important ideas are intentionally ridiculed, as people confuse God with religion. Isn't your view of how one should be informed severely limited? What does epistemology ask?
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Sweetheart. I'm sorry, but you should not try to defend this.
The truth is out there if you search for it.
AquarianAgeManifest 2 years ago
Christian Kenneth Miller DESTROYED ID and IC claims: watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
I'm convinced child indoctrinated theists like her can't distinguish between a wishful thought and reality.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
I am thoroughly familiar w/ Ken Miller's brilliant work in evolutionary biology and I am a student of Darwin's. His ideas are revolutionary, some right, some wrong , I doubt that you would agree with him that women are less intelligent than men or ascribe to other anthropological characterizations that he proposed. As Ken Miller stresses, everything in science is open to meaningful questions. A mind behind the design of the universe is not wishful thinking, and Einstein recognized this.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
"women are less intelligent than men... he proposed" Evidence?
You are not fooling anyone with this Pantheistic, Deistic and Theistic confusion. If there is a Pantheistic or Pandeistic god, there is more evidence it is cruel, capricious and uncaring. What is the ID of disease creating microbes? They are well designed to kill poor innocent babies.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
Darwin's views on women's intelligence are widely known. Read The Descent of Man and find an embarassment of such views plus fuel for biological racism. Darwin was a brilliant scientist but his work is not Holy Writ and is subject to criticism and correction. Look, there are dangers and wonders in the universe. Our intelligence allows us to take prophylactic actions to guard against many dangers, including diseases. Human intelligence reflects a greater intelligence we've barely tapped.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Sorry, I thought you were indicting Miller as sexist.
Nobody worships Darwin. Why the strawman? His observations & scientific ideas are important not the 19th century cultural norms. Don't you think the same way for the U.S. founding fathers? Science has heroes not prophets and is constantly evolving. Physics and Biology pHds today have a better understanding of their science than Darwin or Einstein.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
Few PhD's compare to Einstein, but you are right that science constantly evolves. Re: Darwin: His strict views on quantitative variation in nature have been modified, but the Malthusian models fundamental to Natural Selection continue to infect science. Ironically, the Rev. Malthus' ideas are at the heart of Darwinism. Gregor Mendel's work on heredity, was free of such influences. Science has heroes, but as with Aristotle vs, Democritus on atoms, we may follow the wrong opinion for a time.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
I was had as well and it hurt for me to admit this. But for the sake of goodness and truth, I had to.
The tower of babel is FOOLISH to believe in and ONCE you come out of your box that you were brainwashed to be put into, you will realize that good IS to break free from bronze age thinking and help the Earth become a kinder and gentler place.
Be convicted for truth NOT comfort of your belief...
Do you have a response to this?
emeralds222 2 years ago 2
You seem a genuine person. When you start realizing the charlatans that surround you, the false preachers and false teachers, you may just begin to realize that you MUST for the sake of truth and honesty realize that you are wrong.
There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that "Jesus" ever existed. Can you honestly tell me that you believe a man shot out into space without a space suit?
STOP trying to promote lies that have been told for the last few thousand years and realize that you've been had.
emeralds222 2 years ago 2
There is more evidence that Jesus lived, than that Pythagoras lived. Einstein was "enthralled by the Nazarene." Emerald, there is no conflict in the truth and ideally, both science and theology are about delving into truth. Jesus advocated human enlightenment and knowing truth, He advocated the kinder, gentler approach to each other that you mention in your second set of comments. Read N.T. Wright's SImply Christian. The teachings of Jesus often conflict with popular religion.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
You have evidence that Jesus was more likely to exist than Pythagoras? Why don't you take over Bart Ehrman's University position with this revolutionary historical knowledge?
Theology is all about ignorance. In Genesis, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (translated as ALL Knowledge, both good & evil) in which Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit of is clear evidence.
Sapien6x 2 years ago
If you care to contact Dr. Erhman directly, he might take the time to explain my statement to you. I don't question the historicity of Pythagoras, but point out the dearth of "evidence." Pythagoras lived. Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: Perspectives on Individual, Social, and Civilizational Change, a book to which I contributed is respected internationally. Not many people, even if they disagree with my views, deride my scholarship as you seem to.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sapien6x 2 years ago
Nice vid! It's very clear that those people who comment your vid haven't even learnt any science before they posted on your vid. They don't know what intelligent design is and still they claim that they know.
But the sad truth is that many people don't want to listen. Evolution is not at all proved, it's just the "best natural reason", which doesn't mean it's true. Scientific evidence proves a young earth (yes it does, really).
God bless you Marsha!
DeMovieMakerRS 3 years ago
Are you serious?
I wonder how much evidence it would take to convince you... Have you just not bothered to look at all of the evidence or were you just told by someone you respect that there is no evidence?
Galactu5 3 years ago 4
Studied, just as all other people who first believed in the evolution theory but then realized that it is not true.
Marsha, I suggest that you remove the ability to comment and rank your video, I doubt that you will get any constructive feedback from the ignorant people of the world.
DeMovieMakerRS 3 years ago
Great. I would be very interested in reviewing the scientific evidence for a young earth. I would also be very interested in the scientific evidence for creation. The evidence for evolution is out there in the public domain. It can be questioned. I feel it only fair to question your assertions don't you? So please, for the sake of discussion, provide the evidence for what you say
amadain17 2 years ago
I am not a young earth proponent and have never claimed to be. I have also not taken any special pains to argue evolution one way or the other, since my focus is on physics. I do see problems within modern evolutionary theory, but of the same type that VIrchow mentioned to Darwin in their correspondence. Many things Darwin wrote are evident, others still open to investigation. Physicists rarely tell each other there is nothing else to learn. Why must biologists? Darwin would not approve.
MarshaERH 2 years ago
Nothing else to learn? Within the realm of evolution, there are enless possibilities of new learning that can, and hopefully will be obtained. I also certainly would not approve of any biologist that told another that there is nothing more to learn. Why so much focus on Darwin? Are you familiar with the scientific method? It is that process, not the particular man that is responsible for the elegance of our understanding of evolution.
subsonic20hz 2 years ago
we know much more about evolution and its mechanisms since darwins time and we are still investigating the mechanisms for evolution. Evolution is not in dispute. The only disputes in science regarding evolution are regarding the mechanisms for evolution. ID can not ever be taken seriously without evidence. Please provide it. If evolution was magically disproved tomorrow this would not mean that life is the product of an intelligent designer. You have to provide proof.
amadain17 2 years ago
.Ironically , "It's not even a hypothesis" reflects Wolfgang Pauli's famous, "That's not right. That's not even wrong." Pauli, a truly gifted scientist to whom the world is indebted,was deeply concerned with reconciling science and spirituality. I say without rancor, read Pauli. There are insightful ideas, and substantive questions and direction that can guide debates about God and science, especially physics. My concerns are not based on "myths." Reality is more complex than we know.
MarshaERH 3 years ago
I think Marsha has more sense than to think that evolution isn't correct. DeMovieMakerRS, you aren't doing her any favors by suggesting that ID is what she believes over evolution. Just because she's christian doesn't mean she believes in junk science.
Galactu5 3 years ago
What's tragic, Marsha, is that you so completely and sincerely embrace PURE MYTH. You are completely hamstrung (deluded) by pure fiction. I fear you are a lost cause. It's due to a weak mind.
indignant99 3 years ago 4
I am not certain it's due to a weak mind. As she said in this video, she has personal evidence. Perhaps a vision or similar event. I don't know, but it's not fair to say that a person has a weak mind when they have an illusion that appears to be real. Back that up with a religion as well established as christianity and you can see how the person won't be budged from their belief.
Galactu5 3 years ago
Intelligent Design isn't testable. It's not a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis.
We should be open to the possibility and try and find some "experimental..." WHAAATTTT!?!?!?!
I'm sorry but invoking God Did It is intellectual laziness and you can't get God to come down to the lab a prove a friggin' thing.
watch?v=E_Bm1RjDkPk -- Watch why ID is just plain silly.
aarlin81 3 years ago 5
Einstein didn't believe in any kind of divine being. His god was the sum of all natural laws.
joshguitarTube 3 years ago 4
Do you think that "Intelligent Design" should be taught in school instead of evolution and do you believe the evolution did not happen in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary? How old do you think the universe is? There are many questions that need to be answered and to put the answers down to 'God did it' is to lazily fob off the work required to actually find out something for yourself.
amadain17 3 years ago 3
So tell me? How old do you think the earth is? Was there a global flood that covered the top of mount Everest? Did the human race get their different languages as a punishment for building a tall building? If you deny these Biblical events then how can you tell which Biblical events and stories to believe?
amadain17 3 years ago 4
Read the whole thread that follows and maybe your questions will be answered.
MarshaERH 2 years ago