Jun 302006
 

PZ Myers vainly justifies his bankrupted Atheistic belief by attempting to connect it to science.

What should a scientist expect from an idea? That it be a reasonable advance in knowledge; that it be built on a foundation of evidence; that it be testable; that it should lead to new and useful questions and ideas. If we look at religion from that perspective, it doesn’t help. At best, the hypothesis of the supernatural and/or a supreme being is vague, unfounded, and inapplicable in any practical fashion-deistic views, for instance, are so abstract and so carefully divorced from risk of challenge that they represent an empty hypothesis, and the most flattering thing you can say about them is that they’re harmless. At worst, religion is confused, internally contradictory, and in conflict with evidence from the physical (and near as we can tell, only) world.

Myers is attempting to create an intersection between the scientific method and the materialistic requirement of an atheistic worldview. Unfortunately he is being inconsistent and he doesn’t even realize it. Why does Atheism expect an idea to advance in knowledge? IOW what is intrinsic about Atheism that requires an idea to advance in knowledge? It seems to me Myers is making a subjective and non-scientific judgment on what Atheism should be. It is just as likely that an atheist can arrive at his faith because he finds the idea of a personal God repulsive. There is nothing intrinsic with a belief system that denies the existence of a personal God that requires it to advance in knowledge or empirically based. Myers is projecting his own scientific training onto his metaphysical belief. I would wager a very large portion of self professing atheists did not come to their faith by detail study of all the evidence for and against such a belief system. I doubt many atheists have read and studied the philosophies of the world’s major religions. For that matter, I doubt they even possess the understanding against Atheism. Find a regular Joe in the street who professes to be an atheist. Ask him if he know anything about the anthropic principle, the implication of the Big Bang, the criticism to Darwinian evolution and the moral implication of Atheism? Myers’s claim of intersection between science and Atheism is just patently false.

While Myers claims that Atheism like science requires that it be built on a foundation of evidence and testability, he rejects this very premise by his commitment to Atheism. The entire theological basis for Atheism asserts that there is no God and no evidence for God. Unfortunately for the atheist he/she is not omniscience. There may be evidence somewhere out there in the universe for God’s existence, but because of Myers’s limitation he does see that evidence, so he must base his belief on faith. As I’ve already mentioned, not every atheist have evaluated and understood all the evidence for and against Atheism before becoming an atheists. Continue reading »

Jun 282006
 

I have to join in on the fun that UD and TT are having, except I like to follow the star of our little drama.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 24, 2006 04:35 PM (e)

Here’s what will blow your mind: I’d rather have open-minded, rational Christians on my side than dismissive anti-science types like yourself,

Don’t hold your breath. Open-minded, rational Christians know that you are an atheistic fundie and a heretic of science.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 24, 2006 02:28 PM (e)

do you think I know nothing about religion?

Yes. You’ve demonstrated that with your unsubstantiated attack on Lewis’s trilemma.

I was brought up in one, I live in a highly religious culture,

You’ve just proved my point. If you know anything about religion or at least the Christian kind, then you would know that being brought up in a religious home means zilch. Just like standing in a room full of monkeys doesn’t make you turn into a monkey. But then again PZ is an atheistic Darwinists so he would believe on credulity.

I get religion chucked at me every single day.

Man talk about paranoia.

I’ve read religious books with far more critical thought than I see from most of the people who demand automatic respect for religion.

It is more like you are reading religious books through the lens of your paranoia. This is why you failed to demonstrate any real critical thinking skills.

I see religion day after day, I see people practicing their religion regularly, I get to share my mornings at the coffee shop with the men’s bible study group that meets there”and everyone tells me that none of that is religion.

Who’s everyone? Go get some help PZ, not everyone is after you man. LOL!
Continue reading »

Jun 242006
 

Mike Gene makes a good argument against Keith Miller’s article Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation. However, I think the argument against Miller’s thesis is much simpler than that. But before I get into my rebuttal, am I the only one who is noticing the TE are on the rise to bash ID? You have people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, SC Morris, and now Keith Miller, all advocates God uses Darwinian evolution as a method of creation.

Let’s take a look at Keith Miller’s theological reasoning.

I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate. … The question for the Christian is then – What is the best interpretive framework for any given passage of scripture? I am convinced that the best interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor chronology are part of the intended message.

On what textual basis does he make that determination. Certainly, Genesis contains many literary techniques, including symbolism, metaphors and documentary devices. Although it does not contain specify dates and length of time it does specify the order of creation. There is no indication the creation account is metaphorical. Just as there is no indication to think this paragraph of mine is anything but a straight forward account of my critique of Miller’s quote. The question is why he chose that framework for interpretation. Is it based on his vast knowledge of ancient manuscripts and literary styles and techniques of documents in that period? Or is it base on his commitment to Darwinian evolution and in fear for a crisis in his faith? Continue reading »

Jun 202006
 

Denyse O’Leary just posted on some YEC’s criticism of ID. Well, having had first hand experience with the strident attack from young earth creationists, I can say their criticism toward ID is mild by comparison. I wonder if the strident attack that YEC have toward other Biblical Creationists is not due to an inferiority complex. They have established themselves as the Pope of Biblical Orthodoxy. They will readily acknowledge that many OEC like myself is Biblically sound in many (if not all) other doctrines except the day/age interpretation. For that we are Bible compromisers and adhere to heresy. Although not calling OEC heretics but just promoting heresies, is a distinction without a difference. AiG claims that this is just an inconsistent interpretation of Genesis. Now who is being inconsistent? Doesn’t AiG know (or purposely ignore) that this strident rhetoric will produce a group of young earth followers that makes ‘big bang’‚ adherence the test of orthodoxy? I know. I’ve been questioned about my salvation due to my acceptance of the big bang theory.

The problem with the YEC charge that OEC are Bible compromisers is arrogant to say the least. They would acknowledge many OEC like John Ankerberg, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser is faithful defenders of the Bible other than their inconsistent interpretation of the word YOM in Genesis. YEC can legitimately disagree with these scholars without resorting to name calling. Considering preeminent scholars like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer, both knowing eight to ten Old Testament languages.

The creation of the universe is dated in Genesis 1:1 as being “in the beginning.”‚ Of that we can be as certain as we are of revelation itself. The creation of Adam came six “days”‚ later, but one must be warned that right there in the first chapters of Genesis the Bible uses the word day with three different meanings: (1) daylight (Gen 1:5), (2) a twenty-four-hour day (Gen 1:14) and (3) an epoch or era, as we use the word in speaking of the “day”‚ of the horse and buggy or Abraham Lincoln’s “day”‚ (Gen 2:4; compare the RSV’s “In the day”‚ with the NIV’s “When”‚ ). I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day”‚ according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine. — Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (Page 103)

You can disagree with it and you can criticize it but to refer to people like this as Bible compromisers? Continue reading »

Jun 192006
 

I will make my comment to Krauze’s post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive creation. Where we stand in that spectrum is less important than how we view Scripture.

As a fundamentalist I view the Bible as the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. The problem comes from how we interpret that Scripture. Do we interpret it willy-nilly or do we apply certain hermeneutic principles to the perspicuous understanding of that Scripture. In other words, the Scripture was written to be understood and followed by its adherents. In that sense it follows the same construct and literary principles of all other ancient documents. Continue reading »

Jun 192006
 

PZ Myers is on his anti-Christian tirade again, but that alone is not noteworthy. Except in this case he has specifically targeted his visceral barbs directly at Francis Collins’s interview on the Sunday Times. (See TT’s post on this) Frankly, I am not surprise of Myers berating Collins this way. I expected it to happen sooner or later. (see A Proud Heretic)

PZ’s strategy is to first eliminate the Christians then the “useful idiots”.

Myers once refer to Collins and Miller as evolutionist’s religious “leading lights”. I guess as long as they tow the party line. Watch out Miller or you might suffer the ire of Myers.

Still up to this point there is nothing noteworthy from Myers that warrants a posting. Except in his tirade, Myers mocked at C. S. Lewis’s trilemma argument. Continue reading »