In my earlier piece about Christianity and terrorism, the Ku Klux Klan was cited as a “Christian terrorist” group. I kind of let that slide, but it occurred to me one very compelling argument why that’s a bogus categorization.
If you look at the examples of the Klan, my adversary cited their bombings of 19 churches in the summer of 1964. That would be 19 Christian churches. Kind of takes the steam out of the “Klans as Christian terrorists” notion, when they’re blowing up their fellow Christians.
Further, I don’t recall the other criterion I specified being fulfilled with any of the groups cited as ‘Christian terrorists” — that they are either endorsed or, at least, refused to be condemned by — mainstream Christian leaders. In Islam, there is most often a deafening silence when militant Islamists commit their acts of terror. That, or a soft codemnation of the act, followed by a quick rationalizing of the act by citing “offenses against Islam” that “provoked” the atrocities.
Now, on to the main point of this piece. How do I, as a proclaimed agnostic and non-Christian, feel about a lot of the Church-State arguments going around?
]]>< 
Yo, Mac, you are arguing with so many people you got lost.
Not my post that you are referring to, never mentioned 2nd ammendment or anything else about the Constition except to say that under local and state laws you could be held liable in such a firing, for different non-constitutional (ie legislative) reasons. I’m quite sure that my education is acceptable.
SYRINX
Mantis,
You have some thoughtful points, but they are inconstant.
The dictionary defines “atheism” as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. That’s different than “saying nothing about God.” The term “agnostic” more accurately describes “saying nothing about God.”
When a court orders the removal of religious icons because of the complaint of an atheist, the court is establishing the belief that there is no God. If the Civil Rights Act defines Atheism as a religion, then recent court rulings are establishing a religion. The alternative is that courts hold that Atheism is not a religion regardless of the Civil Rights Act. As I’ve stated before, enacted law can and often does exceed protections based on the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Enacted law could protect employees from an employer’s mandated dress codes or just about any other thing else. You can’t use examples based on enacted law to make constitutional arguments. It’s settled law, however, that non-religious beliefs are not protected by the 1st amendment. PETA is an example of strongly held beliefs that are non-religious and not protected by the 1st amendment. Even current enacted law won’t protect an employee from being fired from their meat packing job if they come to work with a PETA t-shirt on.
As for what you say is my “very strange view of religion”, it comes right out of the Gospels. Basically, there is no natural position. If you are not for God you are against God. A nation that won’t confess it’s under God is not a nation I will pledge allegiances to. For every atheist that’s offended by the phrase “under God” in the pledge there are many more religious people who will give up on this nation should it reject it’s Jewdao Christian heritage.
SYRINX,
Okay, I did incorrectly attribute the 2nd amendment mistake to you. However, contrary to your current claim that you never mentioned anything else about the Constitution you wrote the following:
Constitution is a good base but already has needed multiple ammendments. Those ammendments should continue to reflect our changing mores and cultural values, regardless of whether you agree with those advances or not.
If you want to split hairs, my posts were based on court cases where Constitutional issues were being raised. You then replied to me basing your arguments on enacted law. I see we now agree that they are different.
edmcgon,
I don’t find any humor in the beheadings by islamic terrorists, but your post did make me laugh. I hadn’t been thinking in the “literal” sense in masks… but point well taken!
M,
Just a couple more things.
“I do think it’s most accurate if evolution would once again be taught as what it is: a theory. No more, no less.” – D.Doré
“I have news for you, it is taught that way.” – mantis
Yes, it’s taught that way in Kansas. But it’s not taught that way throughout the USA. That’s why there’s a hailstorm of conflict created when a schoolboard decides that because a science text book refers to evolution as solid fact and not theory they would simply put stickers on the book saying that evolution is a theory, and that other theories exist. The temper tantrums thrown by strict evolutionists (and secular humanists) were so strong it caused a tremor that rated 2 on the richter scale! You would have thought that the sticker said: “Evolution was just a joke Darwin had rustling around in his head. Everyone knows creationism is fact! Look, here’s Adam & Eve’s address…”
But that’s not what happened.
“Tax dollars do not go to the ACLU. They get their funding from numerous foundations and grants, and from small donations from people like me (Yes, I’m a card carrying member. Boo!).” – mantis
For a card carrying member (I always think their Christmas cards are funny by the way), you must not read the newsletter very carefully. If the ACLU takes any form of government (local school board, etc…) to court (especially when arguing over matters of the establishment of religion) and win, their court costs are then reimbursed by the government. Government is pretty much sole founded with tax dollars. So, even though I don’t hold a card from the ACLU (or even get a handwritten “thank you”) they’ve gotten funding from me through my tax dollars. People of faith around the country are subsidizing their own dismantling by the ACLU. I believe that infringes upon my religious freedom.
So to sum this up I’d like to quote someone who I know for a fact isn’t stupid:
“But please get your facts straight.” – mantis
Mac,
I was going to respond but this is just too much:
If you are not for God you are against God.
Whatever.
D. Dore,
People of faith around the country are subsidizing their own dismantling by the ACLU. I believe that infringes upon my religious freedom.
I didn’t realize you were talking about legal fees won in court cases. I’m not sure how you would prevent this short of banning the ACLU altogether. However it’s not intentional funding, the government is not trying to award the ACLU. In any case how does that infringe on your religious freedom? Are you unable to go to church because the ACLU got money in a court case? How are the ACLU “dismantling” people? Why do you think public schools should be churches?
“D.Dore is wrong, on so many points. So many that I doubt he can read.” – Syrinx
Apparently I read well enough to have spotted this paradox in your posts:
“I don’t know where you made up that crap about internment camps, if you re-read my posts you’ll see that I never suggested any such thing. I don’t care what you believe, I really don’t” – Syrinx
And:
“To those who support removing religion from our culture completely and destroying the power base of the madmen leading these religions, keep up the good work.”
“To those who are permanently deluded or brainwashed by the religious meme, we are working on a vaccine to cure you….” – Syrinx
It’s like: “Contradictions On Parade” and Paul Kurtz is the Grand Marshal.
“Nowhere did I suggest that I have ‘faith’ in secular humanism, as it is not a religion and is only a philosophy.” – Syrinx
Actually, even the Supreme Court recognizes Secular Humanism as a religion in Torkoso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court said that “among religions … are Buddhism … and secular humanism,” etc.
If that wasn’t enough, it even calls itself a religion. (The Humanist, Sept. 1984) The title of an article in The Humanist, Feb. 1983, for example, describes the movement as “A Religion for a New Age.”
“you are incapable of recognizing a salient point if it hit you in the face. You cannot concede the points I’ve made in my posts and you cannot defend against them, so now I’m under attack by a couple of intellectual lightweights with a keyboard and a bag full of hatred. Some fine examples of Christianity you are.” – Syrinx
Look again at the posts I’ve made from your arguments. It would appear that this paragraph is completely void. Although I don’t believe that I exemplified hate in my postings towards you about your writings, I am truly sorry if you felt hurt by them. However I don’t seem to see much name calling in my postings.
But using my skills in reading once again I do find comments like: “faith instead of logic” (implying that both are in direct opposition to one another, and therefore that I or any other person of faith lacks logic); “95% of the population ARE deluded, and brainwashed”; “dimwitted”; “intellectual lightweights”; and “bag full of hatred” within your posts.
Totally forgot about the evolution bit.
Yes, it’s taught that way in Kansas.
No, it’s taught the looney way in Kansas, everywhere else it’s taught as a theory. In Kansas, they changed the definition of science to include untestable, hypothesis-free, supernatural occurences. What is to stop physics teachers from offering the theory that the movement of the planets is actually the tetherball game of the gods? Nothing, anymore. Not only that but the new Kansas standards outright lie to the students, saying
the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
There is no evidence, there are no alternative scientific theories in molecular biology or elsewhere.
In any case you seem to think the reaction from the scientific community is overdone. In a narrow view, maybe so, but when you consider this as yet another battle in an ongoing war against religious extremists who want to subvert the foundation of science in our schools, I wish the reaction were stronger. Some of us want kids to learn real science in schools, not mythology or psuedoscience.
D. Dore,
I’m glad you liked the mask comment.
I do have to nitpick on one thing you said:
““faith instead of logic” (implying that both are in direct opposition to one another, and therefore that I or any other person of faith lacks logic)“
The definition of faith (from dictionary.com) would disagree: “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
While it does NOT mean that a person with faith is incapable of logic, certainly the faith itself can be called devoid of logic.
I love watching Creationist vs. Evolution arguments. You folks may continue, but let’s have a clean fight. No hitting below the Neanderthals, ok?
Come on mantis, there’s no place in any of my posts that I asked for schools to become churches. In fact I expressly said in my discussion:
“I’m not asking to have evolution removed from our schools, and I’m also not asking to have a biology teacher teach my children about Adam & Eve.” – D. Doré
(I can’t believe I just quoted myself. That’s just weird)
Prior to Paul becoming an apostle of Jesus, he was called Saul and was the most stridant and effective pharisee and destroyer of Christians. If his living was earned from the taxes placed upon the very people he was persecuting, those tax payers would unwillingly be paying for their own destruction. I would say that’s an infringement upon their religious freedom.
The ACLU (and if you are a card carrying member then you know personally) isn’t only concerned with keeping crosses out of public seals, and the Ten Commandments out of court houses.
The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.”
Communism and and and all religions are directly opposed to one another. They can not co-exist.
George Grant, author of “Trial and Error,” puts the ACLU’s annual budget (1993) at $14 million – much of which is supplied by the American Taxpayer through the Federal program mandated by the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fee Awards Act of 1976. If the ACLU wins a case that involves a public institution, for instance, the organization collects the full legal fees of its attorneys even though those attorneys offered their services pro bono (without charge).
So for my money to be taken from me and without my approval be used to support the very organization that desires the complete secularization of the USA and the irradication of my faith… I see that as an afront and threat to my religious freedom.
Also… I was so concerned with writing to Syrinx I almost forgot about your use of “establishment of religion”.
I very much appreciate your answer to me in that post and I found it very educational. Yet I believe research into the school systems (those created and run by the state) used reading primers. I’ve yet to see a primer (pronounced with a soft “i” like “in”) created any time during the 1700’s and 1800’s that weren’t almost completely based on teaching reading lessons from scripture and moral lessons taught from the Bible. Isn’t amazing that the authors of the Bill of Rights wouldn’t have pitched a fit over such things and mandated a completely secular primer be created?
How many governmental seals and logos would be created in that time period, or existed during the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791? Wouldn’t the same House that “would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others” be appauled by them and say that such things would need to be removed or changed immediately?
Your text is intriguing but Levy makes a vast assumption when interpreting Madison’s flat refusal of the Senate’s version. The quote would almost make it appear that Madison himself made those statements, but those are simply Levy’s words and not Madison’s. I’m not saying you made the quote that way… you simply posted what someone else had penned in that fashion.
Jumping off my educated friend edmcgon’s provided definition of faith I must tell you that such verdant followers of evolution have much more faith in their theory than I do in all of my religion.
I also find it very convenient for you that evidence that supports the theory that you like the most is defined as “science” but any scientific evidence that calls into question your predefined ideology automatically becomes called “pseudo-science” or “para-science”, anything you want, just as long as you don’t have to revaluate your position.
Man it’s really silly seeing as how that’s the same kind of thing claim creationists or intelligent design scientists of doing.
On a side note to edmcgon:
Thanks for the definition of faith. It’s nice and very clinical. The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) to Syrinx was that faith and logic can go hand and hand. My faith in Christianity is aided by tons of both historical and experiential evidence. My faith is logical in both its practice and its system of beliefs. They work tangently and cohesively and not at odds with one another. That’s what I was trying to explain in a more succint way.
Hey… I gotta run for a day or two.
mantis, mac, s, syrinx, darleen and especially edmcgon,
Have a GREAT Thanksgiving! I hope you have a great weekend filled with moments of merriment and great memories!
Mantis,
I see you consider my phrase that if you are not for God you are against God to be “just too much.” Yet, you claim the same for evolution when you say that “there are no alternative scientific theories in molecular biology or elsewhere.” In effect, you either accept evolution or you’re some kind of loony.
It would be more correct to say that currently there are no commonly accepted alternative scientific theories in molecular biology or elsewhere. If science has demonstrated anything it’s that there are few issues settled in science. Consider the surprise when the classic laws of motion were overturned.
Scientist realize that a computer based on quantum mechanics would be vastly more powerful that current technology. Quantum computers are not based on chemistry, but a strange property of sub atomic partials called entanglement. There are many natural sources of entangled partials in the universe. Could such partials come together in such a way as to produce intelligence? Could that intelligence evolve to become self-aware and beyond? If it sounds absurd remember that evolution requires the absurd notion that chemicals came together in such as ways as to produce life. There’s no logic in rejecting one possibility and then accepting the other. Are you prepared to claim that advanced intelligence can only arise in the wetware between human ears? If a quantum intelligences did arise it would be as superior to human intelligence as a quantum computer would be superior to your PC. If such an intelligence influenced the development of chemical based life, how would we detect such influence? That’s what the theory of ID is about. If you can discover structures in living organisms that can’t be explained by evolution, then you have discovered some other influence. Perhaps that influence is not intelligence, but rather built into the natural laws of this universe. Either way the current scientific dogma labels anyone wanting to do such investigations as a loony.
On a much more practical level I don’t believe science can explain the origins of life and species when they have yet to explain what causes hemorrhoids.
Mac,
I see you consider my phrase that if you are not for God you are against God to be “just too much.” Yet, you claim the same for evolution when you say that “there are no alternative scientific theories in molecular biology or elsewhere.” In effect, you either accept evolution or you’re some kind of loony.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying no one has come up with a scientific theory that in any way refutes evolution. Theories abound, but none scientific. For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable; it must produce testable hypothoses. ID or creationism have not produced a scientific theory. If someone actually comes up with a theory explaining how species developed that produces testable hypothoses and relies upon evidence, I will welcome it to the debate wholeheartedly. No one has yet done that.
As I said before, there are unanswered questions in the theory of gravitation and atomic theory. However, since the evidence supports these theories, and no one has yet offered any scientific alternatives, they stand as commonly accepted among scientists. Same goes for evolution. The classic laws of motion were reconsidered when evidence supporting testable hypothoses based on a scientific theory (Quantum Mechanics) proved them to be wrong (or incomplete, rather).
You are not a loony if you don’t accept evolution, but you’re not being scientific either (unless you come up with some scientific reasons/theory). Which is fine with me, by the way; science and faith are two different things.
As far as your statement of “either for god or against god”, I find it ridiculously stupid. I’m not for or against god, just as I’m not for or against the tooth fairy. I don’t believe they exist. I’m never “for or against” nonexistent things. (For the record I’m not anti-religion either; I think religion and religious people have done a lot of good in the world. I also like Jesus very much. Jesus the teacher, that is, not the god.)
Mantis,
Actually is was Relativity that overturned the classic laws of motion.
In order for evolution to be science it must be falsifiable. Knowing that, Darwin himself explained how his theory could be proven false. ID uses Darwin’s own example to test his theory and ID has some real scientists working on it, yet evolutionists won’t consider any challenge as “scientific” as if they get to decide what is or is not science.
The possibility of quantum based intelligence is a wild theory just as relativity was in it’s day. Yet, real science embraces such theories, because that’s where breakthroughs often come from. Among scientists, only evolutionists act as if they were protecting a religion rather than a scientific theory. That’s why evolution is better characterized as the religion of scientists, rather than science.
There are many things outside the scope of human knowledge. If M theory is right, the universe is likely infinite both in size and age. It seems foolish then to reject the witness of good men the Jesus is Lord.
I thought I had relativity in there next to quantum mechanics, but I guess I should proofread better.
In any case, you still have not addressed the criticism that no testable theories have arisen to dispute evolution. If you can cite one testable hypothesis that if supported by evidence would contribute to a theory other than evolution that explains any species origin, please do so. Until then, none of this business of “evolution is a religion” means crap. Just because “real scientists” are working on it doesn’t mean they have come up with anything. When they do, let’s look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it. Until they present some hypotheses and evidence, there is no debate.
Relativity was considered a wild theory when Einstein introduced it because people didn’t understand it and because it contradicted commonly held scientific theories. However, Einstein had evidence, falsifiability, and an actual theory! ID has none. Einstein of course was wrong on some things, as quantum theory has shown, with evidence, falsifiability, and actual theory!
Science explains natural processes. Science has rules. ID proposes supernatural processes. ID has no rules. ID is not science. That is why scientists overwhelmingly reject it.
Try going into a university geology department and propose the idea that volcanos are caused by invisible firebreathing dragons that live deep under the earth (or “Dragon Design”, as I’ll call it). When they ask you for evidence or a way to actually prove this, tell them you have none but that current theory concerning volcanos has “gaps” in it. When they laugh in your face will you then declare geology to be a “religion of scientists”?
Mantis,
Darwin proposed that to falsify his theory one would need to show some structure existed that couldn’t be produced by a series of small steps. Searching for irreducibly complex structures is defined by Darwin himself as a scientific test of evolution. No explanation is required as to how such structures came to be, only that they exist. By claiming the search for irreducibly complex structures, which is the central idea in ID, is not science, evolution fails the test of being falsifiable, and thus, is itself not science. In short, by refusing to acknowledge the science of irreducibly complexity, evolution itself becomes pseudo-science.
The evolution of a new species has never been observed either in nature or in the lab. Creating a new species in the lab proves species can be created by intelligent design, not by evolution. Easily reproducible experiments demonstrate process that can lay down many layers of sediment in a short time and grow such layers horizontally. These simple experiments prove that layers in sedimentary rock are not reliable indications of either time or sequence. However, much of the underpinnings of evolution are based on just such indications of time and sequence due to layering in sedimentary rock. Radiometric dating has so many problems and counter examples that labs have to ask researcher how old they believe a specimen is in order to get an acceptable date. Of course they can’t date sedimentary rock with inorganic radiometric dating techniques, so researches use the theory of evolution to date the fossils they find in adjacent sedimentary layers to arrive at an age for the igneous rock they submit for radiometric dating. They then use the radiometric date to support some aspect of evolution theory. Such curricular logic is never acceptable in any other science.
Try going into a university geology department and propose the idea that volcanoes evolved from older volcanoes and use the existence of volcanoes to prove they evolved. When they laugh in your face will you then declare geology is pseudo science?
It’s apparent from your writing that you think religious beliefs are illogical, but that position is grounded in the profound ignorance of humankind. Perhaps you are right, but perhaps you are wrong. The Bible teaches that in God’s wisdom God cannot be found by human wisdom, only by faith. His purpose is to give the faithful the most magnificent treasure, one that’s beyond all human understanding and experience. He hides the keys to that treasure in plain view of all knowing the proud will never find them. Even when someone says “look here are the keys to the treasure”, many won’t believe. If you are right, neither of us will ever know, but if I’m right we’ll both know. The difference is that I’ll show up with the keys.
D. Dore,
“The point I was trying to make (and apparently failed) to Syrinx was that faith and logic can go hand and hand. My faith in Christianity is aided by tons of both historical and experiential evidence. My faith is logical in both its practice and its system of beliefs. They work tangently and cohesively and not at odds with one another.”
Then you have knowledge, not faith. Knowledge is a far better thing.
You have a great Thanksgiving too! Save some cranberry sauce for me. 😉
WOW! Checl out what this Crazed Hard Right Wing Christian Nut Cake had to say about Thanksgiving! Good thing THIS lunatic isn’t running for office!
“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor — and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks — for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation — for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed — for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted — for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions — to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually — to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed — to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord — To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us — and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.”
George Washington
Wow. Now he’s once crazed evangelical! You know, I’m pretty sure he had a hidden agenda to turn the government of the USA into a theocracy! And this happened all during the process of the Bill of Rights being ratified.
(Sorry for hijacking the thread Jay)
Mac,
I’m glad you’ve brought up some specific arguments. I don’t have a whole lot of time to go into all of this as I have to pack for the Thanksgiving nightmare, but your points have all been dealt with by people more familiar with speciation and radiometric dating than me.
1. Searching for irreducibly complex structures is defined by Darwin himself as a scientific test of evolution.
Here’s the actual quote you’re referring to from Origin of the 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, but I can find out no such case.
And here is the actual definition of irreducible complexity:
“a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”. (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)
You’re a bit late with your debate points on this topic, as Behe introduced this idea in 1996, and was long ago convincingly refuted.
The irreducible complexity definition is distinct from what Darwin was talking about, so we’re not really talking about what Darwin stated, but no matter. Many of the things Behe claims to be irreducibly complex are not, and the things that are irreducibly complex can still be explained by evolution. See here for a long article on evolution of irreducibly complex structures as well as reducibly, but very complex structures.
Interestingly, Behe published this idea almost at the same time that this study (You’ll need access to a library with a subscription for this one) came out, which explains the evolution of a complex biochemical structures, which Behe claimed no one has explained.
By claiming the search for irreducibly complex structures, which is the central idea in ID, is not science, evolution fails the test of being falsifiable
The search for irreducibly complex structures is not unscientific, the claim that evolution can’t explain them is.
(It is also worth noting that Behe does not dispute that evolution exists or is a theory supported by much evidence, he merely claims that some things can’t be explained by evolution, distinguishing himself from many others in the ID movement, including the Kansas school board and, presumably, you).
2. The evolution of a new species has never been observed either in nature or in the lab.
False. See these pages:
Claim CB910: No new species have been observed.
Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
3. On radiometric dating (Read the whole thing, it’s fascinating):
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale:
The geological time scale and the techniques used to define it are not circular. They rely on the same scientific principles as are used to refine any scientific concept: testing hypotheses with data. There are innumerable independent tests that can identify and resolve inconsistencies in the data. This makes the geological time scale no different from other aspects of scientific study.
4. It’s apparent from your writing that you think religious beliefs are illogical, but that position is grounded in the profound ignorance of humankind.
I don’t believe that religion belief is illogical, just some religious beliefs. I don’t think that evolution rules out the existence of god. In fact the very existence of evolution in nature is for me a plausible (if not testable) reason to believe in god. There is a reason that life tends to mutate, recombine, and borrow genes, to evolve in order to succeed in environments and expand to new ones. It may be explained scientifically someday, but I doubt it. It could be god. I don’t believe it is, but it could be.
5. The Bible teaches that in God’s wisdom God cannot be found by human wisdom, only by faith.
So stop trying to find him through science, and just have faith.
Thanks D. Dore! That is a good reminder of what Thanksgiving is all about.
Sorry to all the atheists out there, but Thanksgiving is a secular holiday with religious intent. Ok, maybe I’m not sorry. 😛
“I don’t believe that religion belief is illogical, just some religious beliefs. I don’t think that evolution rules out the existence of god. In fact the very existence of evolution in nature is for me a plausible (if not testable) reason to believe in god. There is a reason that life tends to mutate, recombine, and borrow genes, to evolve in order to succeed in environments and expand to new ones. It may be explained scientifically someday, but I doubt it. It could be god. I don’t believe it is, but it could be.”
mantis,
I completely agree with most of your statement, with the mild exception being that I do believe science will one day explain God (but not in my lifetime).
“So stop trying to find him through science, and just have faith.”
Why should we stop trying to find God through science? For me, that is the ultimate purpose of science.
I would phrase this differently: Stop looking to science for God. They haven’t found Him yet. In the meantime, have faith.