2 posts tagged “creation”

It is interesting in talking with an Atheist, when you bring up the question, “Well, where did the all the matter/energy come from to form this primordial egg that exploded in a “big bang”?”  There immediate answer is, “Where did God come from?”  The Theist (a belief in God…as opposed to Atheism), will answer that eternity by definition is not only in a “eternity future”….but “eternity past”.  This is in direct opposition to the basic scientific understanding of entropy that sees both a beginning and ending of all things. (Uniformitarianism). Second, as a scientist will admit, a belief in God regardless of the many assumptions of logic and evidence that point to a creator ultimately is an act of faith.  God by definition, both transient and immanent, (omnipresent), is outside of what we perceive as time, therefore God has no beginning or ending.  Where a scientist must base his belief on evidence (the scientific method of observation, recording and experimentation)… a Theist does not have that requirement.  Therefore the question to an Atheist of “Where did the matter/energy come from”? is quite appropriate and requires an answer based upon known scientific principals and empirical evidence.  But the question to a Theist of “Where did God come from”? not only does not require an answer but is based on an ignorance of basic theology and is merely a diversion, because science has no answers to this question of our universes initial advent.  Remember, the study of origins as presented by scientists (and in our public school textbooks) is more than a biological process.  It is presented as a process that:

1)      Brought time, space and matter into existence from nothing.

2)      Organized that matter into galaxies, stars, and at least 8 planets (Pluto and four other solar system bodies now being classified as “dwarf stars”) as well as other observed objects and phenomena.  This is referred to as cosmic evolution.

3)      Brought about life on at least one of the planets from nonliving matter. This is referred to chemical evolution.

4)      Caused the living creatures to be capable of an interested in reproducing themselves.

5)      Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify by total random chance into different forms of living things, from simple one celled organisms into more complex forms such as plants and animals on earth today.  This is referred to as biological evolution.  Somehow this hypothesis must also account for thought, intelligence and creativity.

This is why a $250,000.00 reward is still ( since 1990) available to anyone that can prove evolution…ie: “that the universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.  This offer of $250,000.00 by Dr. Kent Hovind is to anyone who can give empirical evidence of evolution.  The inability to do so demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more that a religious belief.  (www.drdino.com)

Richard Dawkins's Delusions

I have been asked by a number of individuals to write an article commenting on Dr Richard Dawkins and his most recent book: The God Delusion. I have long admired his popular scientific works, long envied their clarity and his beautiful use of analogies. Like his American college Dr Stephen Jay Gould, who dies in 2002 of cancer, if they weren’t scientists…they might have been poets. I  have read his 1976 work, “The Selfish Gene”, a gene centered view of evolution and “The Extended Phenotype”, a theory that this observable characteristic (such as morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties or behavior) are not limited to an organisms body but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms. Although his analogies, language and approach even in these scientific publications show an underlying hostility not just to religion but his individual contempt to anyone who believes in God. He holds the chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford and is a fellow at New College, Oxford. Finally in 2006, he officially made the jump from empirical science to uneducated theology, with his book, The God Delusion. His biggest critics were not only fellow scientists (a number from Oxford) who he would dismiss as not “real” scientists, but also fellow atheists, who could not understand his “intolerant hostility”. Fellow atheist and Ph.D., Dr Michael Ruse writes, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” When some scientists write in their support of religion, Dr Dawkins retorts that they simply “cannot mean what they say”. Cultural and literary critic, Terry Eagleton, writes, “Imagine someone holding forth on Biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” You can see the effect of his book as people “parrot” Dr Dawkins comments and using them instead of sound scholarship and research. Armed with his book and the internet, they repeat his mantras of: “Real scientists reject the belief in God”, “These scientists belong to the Neville Chamberlain School of evolutionists. They are appeasers”, “These scientists are dishonest”, “The God of the Jews was a psychotic child abuser”, “Well, that’s what you would say, isn’t it?” “Why do all Christians use the same excuses?” “Faith is blind trust in the absence of evidence”, “A belief in God is just like believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus”, “Bringing up children within a religious tradition is a form of child abuse”, and these are but a few. It will be interesting seeing the ripostes that follow this pattern. Like many of Dr Dawkins analogies and comments, these are constructed with a specific agenda in mind……the ridiculing of religion. As Dr Alister McGrath (another PhD in molecular biophysics and former atheist, from Oxford,) who writes in his book The Dawkins Delusion, “I very much fear that the secularists would merely force there own dogmas down the throats of the same gullible children---who lack, as Dr Dawkins points out, the discriminatory capacities needed to evaluate the ideas. This whole approach sounds uncomfortably like the anti-religious programs built into the education of the Soviet children during the 1950’s, based on mantras such as “Science has disproved religion”. “Religion is superstition”!” and the like. Sounds familiar doesn’t it. Yes, there is a need for a society to reflect on how it educates it’s children but that needs to be done through accurately and fairly teaching on what religions teach rather than being subjected to the derisory misrepresentations of Christian theology that litter Dawkins piece of propaganda. Even Dr Stephen Jay Gould, a fellow atheist and one of Harvard’s most simulating teachers, wrote that “the natural sciences, including evolutionary theory, were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief.” To Dr Dawkins this was the highest form of treason in the religion of Atheistic Fundamentalism.

Dr McGrath writes, “Whereas Dr Gould at least tries to weigh the evidence, Dr Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts instead of careful, evidence-based thinking”. How could such a gifted scientist, who once had such a passionate concern for the objective analysis of evidence, turn into such an aggressive antireligious propagandist with an apparent disregard for evidence that is not favorable to his case? Every one of Dr Dawkins’s misrepresentations, overstatements, historical and cultural errors and theological nescience, can be challenged and corrected….and has. But they are met with the “parrot” rebuttals, “Well. That’s what you would say, isn’t it?” or “That is the same answers all Christians say.” Objections to his analysis are likely to be dismissed and discounted in advance precisely because they are made by “biased” religious people who are foolish and arrogant enough to criticize “objective” and “rational” atheists.

Dr Dawkins compares the threat of AIDS and "mad-cow" disease to the threat posed by faith. He writes that faith is "one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate". Dr Dawkins’s lack of Christian perspective or even a basic knowledge and understanding of Christian Theology is a fertile ground for the seeds of bigotry. The dictionary definition of faith is, “the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.” For a Christian, this definition is not just words on a page but is a way of life. Faith is acceptance of what cannot necessarily be seen but felt in a more intuitive level. Where Dr Dawkins sees faith as intellectual nonsense, most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs that we cannot prove to be true. Theoretical Physicists and Cosmologists have long made the point that there are many scientific theories that are presently believed to be true but may have to be discarded in the future as additional evidence emerges or new theoretical interpretations develop. There is no difficulty, for example, in believing that Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered by many to be the best explanation of the available evidence, but that does not mean it is correct, and may too have to be modified or discarded as new evidence or theories emerge.

Dr Dawkins calls faith a "vice". He criticizes scientists who falsify evidence. He calls science "one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around - because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence". He ignores the many examples of fraudulent evidence in a variety of scientific disciplines created by individuals seeking fame, wealth and validation of their theories by fellow scientists. Scientists are people just like anyone else. Some good and some bad. For Dr Dawkins, human beings are nothing more than animals that have evolved from lower forms of life and ultimately from non-life. Even as a scientist, I have always felt we are more than the sum of our parts. Somehow, he feels that a sense of awareness that some things are right and wrong have welled up in the human mind over the course of evolution. Ethical feelings are epiphenomena, feelings that have developed out of the chemical construction of the brain which itself evolved to possess this capacity. What does this mean? This means that ethical norms are like opposable thumbs, an inherited trait that has evolved gradually from non-life. This like others of Dr Dawkins’s pet theories that ethical and moral norms have evolved are not based in any scientific evidence but in fact fly in the face of not only man’s history but every discipline whether scientific, philosophic or theological. My observations, as a friend of mine once told me, “Man is like water…he seeks his lowest level”. Almost as an example of entropy, man’s behavior throughout history has a tendency to follow the path of least resistance. It is always easier to destroy than create. Easier to kill than to invest one’s time and resources to save a life. Man looks generally to a short term pleasure through evil, than a long term vision seeking good. A look at our history does not show a complementary evolution of man and at the same time, an evolving of ethical and moral norms. If anything man is more barbaric now than before he evolved into a biped. Dr Dawkins makes the charge that “more have died in the name of God than for any other reason”. Is this true or is it another of the misrepresentations for the internet scholar? In fact more have died in non-religious conflicts and specifically under the forced indoctrination of Atheism just in the last 100 years than all the previous wars in recorded history. Since 1900 over 232 million have died in non-religious world conflicts. The greatest mass murders being atheists Lenin (4,000,000), Pol Pot (2,000,000) Stalin (43,000,000) and Mau Zedong (77,000,000). ( Robert Conquest, The Great Terror and R.J. Rummel, Death by Government) To rebut these facts Dawkins’s starts quoting the Bible, especially the flood. The very book he spends most of his time saying is as fictional as a comic book. So much for objective analysis.

Throughout the book, Dr Dawkins’ continues on his dogmatic insistence that “real scientists ought to be atheists and has met with fierce resistance from precisely the very community that he believes should be his fiercest loyal supporters. Freeman Dyson, a world renown Physicist widely believed to be the next Nobel Prize winner for his work in quantum electrodynamics, spoke at his receiving of the Templeton Prize and not only celebrated the achievements of religion but was clear about the downside of atheism noting two of the greatest mass murders of our century (see above) were atheists. Dr Dawkins regarded this as an act of “apostasy and betrayal”.

Dr. Owen Gingerich, one of Harvards most renowned astronomers, produced God’s Universe, declaring that the “universe has been created with intention and purpose, and this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise.” Dr. Francais Collins writes in his Language of God, that the wonder and ordering of nature points to a creator God. Dr. Paul Davies, author of Goldilocks Enigma, while not subscribing to the Christian notion of God sees something divine out there. For Davies, his bio-friendliness of the universe points to an overarching principle that somehow pushes universe toward development of life and mind. Of course Dr Dawkins dismisses them out of hand. A survey done in 1916 helps cast some light on Dr Dawkins dogmatic belief. In 1916 active scientist were asked, “Do you believe in a personal God---specifically one that actively communicates with humanity and to whom one may pray with an expectation of receiving and answer.”
The results are well known: 40% said they did believe in this kind of God, 40% said they did not and 20% were not sure. The survey was conducted again in 1997, using the same question with almost the same results: 40% said they did, 45% said they did not and 15% were unsure. What shocked me was the manipulative phrasing of the question. The survey did not say, Do you believe in God?” The first question obviously eliminated scientists like Dr Paul Davies, who clearly believes in a Creator, just not a personal God. Or Albert Einstein, who would best be described as a pantheist, who often used religious language and imagery in his accounts of science. (Michael P. Leine: Pantheism; A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity) A more recent survey which asked scientists simply, Do you believe in God”? resulted in 82% stating that they did. Now that has to be distressing for the Atheistic Fundementalist.

In conclusion I want to leave you with a thought from Dr McGrath’s book, The Dawkins Delusion”. “Until recently, Western atheism had waited patiently, believing that the belief in God would simply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded and seems to exercise still a greater influence in both public and private spheres. The God Delusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflecting an intense distaste for religion. The anxiety is that the coherence of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected resurgence of religion persuade many that atheism itself is a fatally flawed worldview?”