Oct 312006
 

NOTE: This is a re-post from an earlier OP that was lost due to the recent crash of the host server for our blog. Since I didn’t keep a copy, this is a close reconstruction from memory as to what I originally wrote and the point I wanted to make. I believe Teleologist still has the orginal comments to this OP and will add them back in.
Donald M

___________________

In his latest screed against religion and theism, The God Delusion, atheist crusader Richard Dawkins puts his full animosity towards religion in general and Christianity in particular on full display. In the second chapter, after spending several pages explaining while the late Stephen Gould’s concept of Non-Overlapping Magisterium (NOMA) was wrong and explaining why any concept of God ought to be just as subject to the methods of scientific investigation as anything else, Dawkins makes a rather startling declaration. Continue reading »

Oct 302006
 

NOTE: This is a re-post from an earlier OP that was lost due to the recent crash of the host server for our blog. Since I didn’t keep a copy, this is a close reconstruction from memory as to what I originally wrote and the point I wanted to make. I believe Teleologist still has the orginal comments to this OP and will add them back in.
Donald M

__________________

Richard Dawkins is on a crusade to destroy religion and any concepts of God. At least, that’s the message of his newest book, The God Delusion. Dawkins, being the village atheist from Oxford that he is, just can’t help being postively euphoric over the wonders of science and the ability of reason to explain, well, everything. Everything, that is, except the premise itself. (Oops!!!)

In Dawkins worldview everything, absolutely everything, is explanable as the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving and acting over eons of time through chance and necessity or their combination. Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, this means that we humans also arrived on the scene as a result of those same processes, and further that the cognative faculties we posses also arrived by that route. But surely there is a problem here for Dawkins and his like-minded atheistic philosophical naturalists. Continue reading »

Oct 192006
 

Bradford over at TT has posted an interesting thread on RNA World. Bradford, like a typical IDiot is looking for empirical and detail testable pathways. The sophisticated and intellectually superior Darwinists on the thread is befuddled by Bradford’s insistence refusal to accept the Darwinian just so stories. Continue reading »

Oct 142006
 

Krauze at TT posted this comment from Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine.

You’re saying that somehow, the first, very simple cell, was actually incredibly complex. Yeah, well, where’s the evidence for that? I mean, where’s the fossil evidence for that? You can’t just make stuff up in science. You actually have to some empirical evidence, so where is that? They have nothing like that, of course. So that, to me, is a deeply flawed argument. [My emphasis]

Michael Shermer might be right in that we don’t have any fossil evidence of that very first instance of a cell. Krauze is mostly right when he said Continue reading »