Can We Live Without God?

 Theology  Comments Off on Can We Live Without God?
Dec 222005
 

Fox News interviewing Ravi Zacharias and Michael Shermer.

Sun., Dec. 25 at 9 p.m. ET
Repeats at midnight
by Lauren Green

A recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll finds that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, but nearly 70 percent think religion plays too small of a role in our lives. One reason may be because people just don’t talk about their faith very much — it’s kept private.

Join FOX News this weekend as we ask, “Can We Live Without God?”

From religion and politics to evolution and creation, pastors, scholars and individuals explain what gives meaning to their lives.

We’ll find out how their faith influences their lives and helps them make the moral and ethical choices we all face.

You’ll meet:

“¢ An evangelical pastor whose guide for dating, sex and marriage comes from directly the Bible

“¢ A Skeptic who turned to science for answers

“¢ A man who took his faith in God out of this world

Dec 012005
 

Andrew Rowell over at ID in the United Kingdom justifiably express his outrage for the Lord May’s retiring annual address. I agree completely with Andrew that Lord May is completely ignorant of Christian fundamentalism. He used his address to go on a tirade of defamatory attack on Christianity. In a sense, I fully understand the threat that he feels. The Darwinian myth that is critical to atheistic belief is being threaten by ID. He is lashing out the only way he knows how, through mischaracterization and strawman arguments. The only problem is that his speech is woefully ignorant and non sequitur. Continue reading »

Nov 142005
 

I don’t want to give the impression that I am trying to attack Dr. Collins. I am happy to know that he is a brother in Christ. However, I feel that he is seriously in error both theologically and, more importantly in the current context, scientifically. Therefore while I respect his prerogative to practice his faith in anyway that he sees fit, I must oppose his attempt to peddle Darwinism to other Christians.

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I hope Dr. Collins would make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. I am not asking him to accept the theory of ID, just his support of a scientific debate.

I want to contrast Dr. Collins’ disparaging of ID with another prominent scientist Dr. Schaefer’s support of ID.

Collins: Darwin’s theory is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists, is not on the brink of collapse (despite what some Christians may say) but is instead supported by “rock solid” evidence from both the fossil record and DNA.

Continue reading »

Nov 072005
 

Let me try to further pontificate on Collins’ appeal to Christians for acceptance of evolution, in hope of making my criticism more clear. The harmony of faith and science that Collins is suggesting would effectively make the Bible subservient to secular science. What Collins wants Christians to do is if there are any conflicts of understanding of the natural world we should submit to secular science without dissent. The Bible must be wrong, because it is just mythology or textual redaction. Collins sees no conflict with faith and science because he has made faith subservient to science.

Ultimately all truth is God’s truth. If the earth is round then it is round for Christians and non-Christians. If Darwinian evolution is truth then it is true for Christians and non-Christians. However, what Collins wants is for Christians not to critically investigate science and blindly accept Darwinian propaganda. Regardless of one’s personal belief, there is plenty of room for skepticism of Darwinian evolution. What Collins is doing makes him look more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think Collins should make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. Faith and science does not have to be at odds with each other. For most Christians and this one in particular scientific investigation is a noble endeavor that leads to a greater understanding of the majesty of the Creator. Christians do not fear science because we believe that ultimately true science is congruent with Christian faith. What Dr. Collins should not do is tell fellow Christians to accept junk controversial science that is used to attack the very faith that he professes.

Nov 072005
 

I have the utmost respect for Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts but I am compelled to offer my disagreement with his recent 2 postings on his characterization of Christians and ID, here and here. Although this blog is not as popular or prominent as Telic Thoughts who by Mike Gene’s own acknowledgement is mostly ID evolutionists. This blog is mainly ID Creationists. So this posting will be my response to Mike and Collins’ comments.

Yet Collins can speak to dozens, even hundreds, of churches and I’m afraid the payoff will remain quite meager. The reason is simple; the notion that science and faith conflict is not housed solely within the Church. On the contrary, this is the war cry of those who seek to advance an agenda of secularism.

I agree Collins’ message will not be popular to Christians but not for the reason that Mike thinks. I will explain in a minute. There is a culture war between people of faith and the secularists. However, this is not the reason why Christians reject Darwinism. It is not even because of the jaundice views of Dawkins lending support to Darwinism.
Continue reading »

Oct 172005
 

Dembski at Uncommon Descent quotes Barbara Forrest from her article “The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35.4 (Dec 2000), 861-889

However, religion cannot help us find meaning in any honest sense unless it can assimilate the truth about where human beings have come from, and the only real knowledge we have about where we came from we have acquired through science.

Consider the words of a staunch atheist like Jean-Paul Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre was correct in stating that man required an infinite reference point in order for life to have any meaning. Since Sartre didn’t believe there was such a reference point, he stated, “Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not” and “Man is a useless passion.” Continue reading »

Aug 042005
 

Macroevolutionary Darwinism is a bad speculation that has been presented as such so many times, for example in the book by David C. Stove “Darwinian Fairytales” (free download):

http://www.realist.org/files

As well as David C. Stove’s related article “So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm

Now that public schools will be presenting scientific criticisms to Darwin’s theory in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and probably in Kansas and others, I want to have this thread as a place where students can search for related material, mostly as online books and articles.

See some highlights and links to the official document “Critical Analysis of Evolution“:

http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/critical.htm

However, as bad as bad speculations are, also are bad those bad interpretations of the Bible, no matter how generalized those private interpretations may be in our society. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 1:45 pm
Aug 012005
 

Here is an example of the fantasy mindset of NASA. In this Tim Russert interview with 3 crew members on Discovery, consider their baseless assertions.

MR. RUSSERT: The question for all of you: planet Earth, in the Milky Way galaxy–Milky Way just one of 100 billion galaxies–do any of you have any doubt that there’s intelligent life beyond Earth?

DR. THOMAS: Well, Tim, you’re quite right, the universe is a vast ocean and we are barely wetting out feet in the beach of that ocean. There are huge distances out there. The immensity is almost unimaginable. Given that, I would say it’s highly likely that there is life somewhere out there in some form, probably a form that’s not even recognizable to us.

DR. CAMARDA: I would say probably odds are there is intelligent life out there.

COL. COLLINS: I also do believe that. I think it would be–it’s kind of unimaginable that, you know, we would really be alone in this universe. I think that, you know, probably not our generation but future generations of people on Earth will find intelligent life.

Let’s carefully analyze their answers for a moment. First, what is the basis for their confidence in the existence of ET life? The universe is a big. It is really big. It’s kind of unimaginable that we are alone in the universe. Do these sound like educated and scientific conclusions? No they sound more like a religious belief and wishful thinking. Continue reading »

Jun 092005
 

Even if we had a satisfactory fundamental physics ‘theory of everything’, this situation would remain unchanged: physics would still fail to explain the outcomes of human purpose, and so would provide an incomplete description of the real world around us.

Occasionally you read something that is so refreshing that it makes you suddenly realize the stale air that you’ve been breathing. This quote from an essay by the cosmologist George Ellis as posted by Paul Nelson from ID the Future is such a breath of fresh air. Ellis’s comment unpretentiously and poignantly zones in on the limitation and fallibility of a purely materialistic science and philosophy.